Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2023

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: Jock Zonfrillo

 * Support Page seems adequate, well referenced. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough to post. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is well sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Broderick Smith

 * Comment The bullet points in the "1990–2023: Acting, workshops and duos" section should be converted into prose. Rest of the article appears to be good. AGF for the offline source in the discography. Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 I've converted the bullet points to prose, so this should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Boston

 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Big gap between 1985 and 2010; do we not know what he did in the period? Rest of the article looks great. Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 I've added some things from in between that time. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Paraguayan general election

 * Oppose on Quality. Article is quite thin on content compared to 2018's edition. No information on the Chamber of Deputies elections such as listed in the 2018 article. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support. Looks good now. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per article's quality and DarkSide. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once improved it is obviously notable and the quality isn't far off the 2018 article. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional support - there needs to be a WP:TABLEWALL link to the MOS:PROSE page. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has almost no useful prose. I count (on my monitor) six whole lines of text, it's basically a stub with a table farm slapped on the end.  No way this is a main-page-ready article.  Needs a massive expansion of quality, well-referenced writing.  -- Jayron 32 17:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient now. -- Jayron 32 09:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is all tables, with only 6 sentences of prose. That is far from sufficient and requires major expansion before we could consider posting. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article needs work, per above. Alex-h (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, just went ahead to be WP:BOLD and updated the article. Added aftermath and some details on the campaign. I am uncertain if there are results for the lower houses just yet, seems like Spanish wikipedia doesn't have any results either, that's my only concern. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hope this is a good enough quality! Apologies for the ping, just concerned if it winds up falling too far behind. Big thanks to for his hard work in updating the tables. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a big improvement, though I'd still like to see more than one sentence of prose in the 'results' section. It could describe where each candidate did well, who under- or over-performed their polls etc. Once that's expanded to a referenced paragraph I think this would be OK to post. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after recent expansions. DecafPotato (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can someone "give me the credits", please? Thanks. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 02:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't know if contributors get credited or not, but if so, I would like to, and I think it would be fair for PizzaKing13 to be as well! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Caliph of Islamic State killed
Probably Support - this probably will receive substantial coverage in the coming hours and will be symbolic of the collapse of the Islamic State. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait @Curbon7. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Too many unknowns. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Until there is independent confirmation. The person making the claim is Erdogan. Y'know, the guy who is currently 2nd place in polls for next month's election. Also the guy who just a few months ago probably lied about the perpetrators of a bombing to push his own political interests. Yeah that guy. I also do recall false claims in 2017 that Russia killed Baghdadi. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also the third "caliph" killed in just over a year, only having been leader since late November. At some point, the significance of such a killing decreases. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything within the article about the Turkish government being the perpetrators of the bombing. But I see your point, and I think it'd be best to wait on this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The BBC isn't reporting that he was killed, they are reporting that Turkey is claiming he was killed. Also, even if he has been killed, that is becoming a very common event and doesn't need a blurb - should be a recent death instead. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose although this is an important event, given that ISIS changes Caliphs so often, this kinda loses the ITN-notability. such as, if Saif Al-Adel was killed, it would be a big deal, because Al-Qaeda changes leadership once every 10 years. but if a ISIS leader is killed, it would still be some news, but not as important because, Per Curbon7, it is the third one to be killed in the past years. Oh, and just because Turkey claims they killed him, doesn't mean that they did. there have been false confirmations for kills before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Who was it that was going to donate $5 to the WMF? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Change in the head of IS rarely results in changes in IS strategy. Article does little establish said individual's particular significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Naming I find it difficult to follow the names of these various leaders as they are so similar: Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi; Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, &c.  It seems that these chaps also use noms-de-guerre of a similar sort which must add to the confusion.  I'm not sure what we can do about that but the title of caliph should be used with care as this is implicitly a claim to be ruler of the entire Islamic world. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While "Caliph" is the official title of the ruler of IS, it doesn't have recognisition. It's a bit similar to if an extremist Christian group claimed the title 'Pope', so I see your point and I think we should use something else if this was to be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vyacheslav Zaitsev

 * Support. Resolved the tags (that section seemed to not be relevant anyway). Article looks good. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited and good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead too short. Needs a few sentences to expand on his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , How does the lede look now? I tried my best, but don't have experience with writing fashion designers. Curbon7 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Meets my cursory check.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) World Chess Championship 2023

 * Support Skyshifter   talk  13:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Normally the results of world championships should be posted, but given that the best player in the world did not participate in the match, posting this to ITN would give the false impression that Ding actually is the world's best player. In other words, this event was really about crowning the second best player, which isn't notable enough for ITN. Gust Justice (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I Support inclusion, and I strongly disagree that it shouldn't be posted simply because Carlsen didn't play. The world championship is the world championship, and it has always been notable, regardless of strength (which, by the way, isn't lightyears away from the world no. 1). Wretchskull (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We are debating article quality only here. Notability is already assumed as this is ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was even worth responding to such a ludicrous vote (note the lack of an exclamation point). Clearly, not a soul will take it seriously, especially not the closing admin. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted the 2012 championship, even though it was between the World No. 4 (Anand) and the World No. 20 (Gelfand), and the highest-ranking player at the time (Carlsen) refused to participate in the qualifying Candidates Tournament. I think that gives a clear precedent. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need precedent; we need to ignore unconstructive non-arguments. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will concede that the 2012 article being posted is a good argument to posting it here. I am just sceptical that all events in ITN/R should always be posted, even in edge scenarios like this. Gust Justice (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Carlsen not wanting to play is his decision. By definition, he is no longer the champion. Juxlos (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as ITN/R. It is not the fault of the two players that competed for this title that Carlsen vacated the title. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb The article is in fine shape. As far as blurb choice, much as I love Magnus, this was about the two players who showed up. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1 Article is ready – lomrjyo talk 13:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Bread Enthusiast (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Marking ready, both ITNR and article quality is there. --M asem (t) 14:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a clear WP:ITN/R event, and the article quality is sufficient to post. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * support - michael jordan hasnt been in the nba finals since 1998 either and we still post that so idk what the difference here is.  nableezy  - 15:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Dang it, you beat me to the nomination! But in all seriousness, it's a high notability event that has good sourcing.  interstate five   15:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support orig – good article, popular game, blurb 1 more direct and less technical. I've made a (hopefully) uncontroversial change to blurb 1 per MOS:EGG. lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 16:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. Nice work, everyone! This is how a sports article should look like :)--Tone 16:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry "Gator" Rivers

 * Support Article is well cited and is long enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good in terms of both sourcing and holisticity. An area of potential expansion would be to his political career, but due to the brevity of his tenure and the fact that it is a minor aspect of his life compared to his basketball career, I don't think it's a big deal for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, @Curbon7 I've added 3 sentences to that section now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ronnie Cummins
Not yet ready Article is a stub. please ping me if there is expansion so I can re-assess. Curbon7 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has a single line of prose with an orange tag. Article is not ready for ITNRD at all. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Single-sentence stub. Too short to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Shannon

 * Support Article is good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and very holistic. I'm not a big fan of the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Broadcasting career" section, but it's not that big a deal, considering the rest of the article is fine. Curbon7 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: István Vágó

 * Support Article looks good, and I addressed the CN tag (hopefully the source is credible enough) - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 14:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tim Bachman

 * Oppose Article has some sourcing issues, plus it is currently classified as a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly not a stub; it doesn't matter what the 17-year old talk page assessment that no one bothered to update says. Curbon7 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taheri Noor

 * Support Excellent work as usual. Article appears to be holistic and well-cited. Minor quibble is that it seems a little underlinked, but this is easily fixable. Curbon7 (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per article quality and Curbon. Looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosemary Cramp

 * Support Article is well cited, long enough, and good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have added an independent source covering her death so I think it meets all requirements now. Good to go IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ranajit Guha

 * Oppose on Quality. Effectively no non-lede prose. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support. Issues have been resolved. Looks good to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support Article is now in good enough shape for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edits done. Please have a look. Article has been expanded and meets homepage hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon the second tagging / ping -- in case the earlier one didn't go through because it was an edit comment.
 * @Fakescientist8000, and @DarkSide830 -- please can you have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, ! Thank you for letting me know that it has been fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taini Jamison

 * Support Article is in fine shape for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the family and early life section fully sourced? Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I signed up for a free-trial for the paywalled source, and it did contain all of the information that is cited in that section in tandem with the two free sources. Curbon7 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: David Jacobs

 * Support Article is already a GA and looks adequate. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GAs are a depreciating asset, and sourcing standards have gone up significantly since 2012. As I note, the entire results section is uncited; maybe this was acceptable then, but it is not now. Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work It appears that the subject had a disability which was significant for their sport but the article doesn't explain this clearly – the lead doesn't even mention it. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the disability to the lead, in which case I support this article being on RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs footnotes.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harold Kushner

 * Comment. The entire "author" section currently lacks any inline references. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've sourced most of the article to the best of my abilities and have also expanded it considerably. Mooonswimmer 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good now. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced bibliography. Stephen 04:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added ISBNs. Mooonswimmer 12:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) First Republic Bank

 * Wait — Source provided says that the FDIC is preparing to put it under receivership. If it happens, weak oppose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Silicon Valley Bank was more or less at the start of the crisis. I wouldn't consider another bank being taken into receivership isn't blurb worthy. However, I would absolutely support an ongoing for this. Estar8806 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support if it actually occurs - absolutely huge news and probably a harbinger for an upcoming economic collapse. However, it hasn't officially occurred yet, just merely being discussed by the FDIC. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose even if it happens, we've already covered the start of the crisis (which was only 2 banks large) This would possibly make it ongoing. --M asem (t) 02:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait WP:RSBREAKING with no statements on the record. Presumptuous to dismiss this together as "just another bank" without seeing the RSs first.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per above, and Vehemently Oppose Ongoing per past discussion on many Ongoing items we have considered overtime where the event is nebulous in nature. A "banking crisis" does not have a defined start date or end date, so it would likely sit in Ongoing for an unreasonable period of time or almost instantly be removed after the updates concerning this failure trickle in, only to be nominated again when another bank fails. That would be a mess not worth getting into. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The broader story was already posted which would cover this; blurbing the same thing twice serves no purpose and ongoing has its own issues as pointed out by DarkSide. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Support if it actually gets FDIC'd, and if so, wait to see media coverage. Juxlos (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - Difficult to determine the impact, when the impact hasn't happened yet. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait to see the impact and closing this seems premature given the potential outcomes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted the banking crisis. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure This is a nomination for an event that has not yet taken place. Therefore at the time of writing, the proposed blurb and altblurb are falsehoods. I suggest that this item is closed. Chrisclear (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait to see if this gets FDIC'd . I would support posting in the case that it does, but the article would need to be updated with precise details; it's not yet ready to post due to the event being a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The hook should mention acquisition by J.P. Morgan. This is the second-biggest failure of a bank in U.S. history, so it's easily notable enough for ITN. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, big problems ahead. Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to be that guy, but WP:POV, WP:ORIGINAL, and WP:CRYSTAL PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update the bank has been taken over by JPMorgan, in an even larger takeover than SVB. Wall Street Journal characterizes it as a failure, FYI. Juxlos (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most sources I see call it a delayed reaction to the SVB and other takeover in March, making this not a significantly new event. M asem (t) 12:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree - too late to post right now QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kaur Singh

 * Comment Article is close, needs some expansion in the "Boxing career" section. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support but some expansion would be quite nice, especially in the Boxing career section per Curbon. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Wee Willie Harris

 * I've been trying to find a source for the discography, but I've only been able to turn up AllMusic and Discogs. Is the former still considered unreliable insofar as discographies are concerned? Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I would believe that it would be AGF accepted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Macnab

 * I've added a few references and expanded an older one. I also emailed AAP to see if they can offer me a full citation for the "Who's Who" reference that contains a dead link. I'll update the article if they come through. Kurtis (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I received a response from Medianet. Unfortunately, they no longer have that citation in their archives. I guess we'll have to settle for having a source with a dead link at the moment. Otherwise, support RD. Kurtis (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, well sourced. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support One Cn tag at the very end, but not worth holding up the entire article over. Prose is a bit superficial, but it's enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Timeline to Ongoing for Russian invasion of Ukraine
Note - what he means is to modify Russian invasion of Ukraine's listing at ongoing to include a link to the timeline article by it. The end result would look like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)." - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have a article about the 2022 Russian Invasion in Ongoing, this is just a repost of something we already have. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editor 5426387: The link would something like Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline). Interstellarity (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You should probably clarify that in the "nominator's comments" section. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful to add this...per previous discussion: Which previous discussion? Or specifically, why would it be helpful?—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 03:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - in the prior discussion, when Russian Invasion of Ukraine was put up for removal from ongoing, a key point made amongst certain editors who opposed was:
 * How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? - @Onegreatjoke
 * Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. - @Curbon7
 * Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. - @Hurricane Noah
 * The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. - @Kurtis
 * Given Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022–present) is being updated. Perhaps its necessary to add this link hidden under the phrase "(Timeline)" so that editors considering a drawn-out ongoing removal know to check the article likely to be updated. - @Masem
 * This is true. The slowdown in edit activity that @Interstellarity mentioned in his original nomination was largely the fault of the numerous content forks that absorbed up much of the war's coverage, rendering the central article a mere overview. However, a requirement for ongoing items is that they ought to be frequently updated, and said updates ought to be substantial. Although the original Russian invasion of Ukraine article still receives daily updates, the quantity has slowed and has largely been absorbed by the various timeline/fork articles as the users above pointed out. Considering that we're supposed to be focusing on more recent topics anyway, it feels correct to add the timeline article by the central article to highlight a more in-depth analysis of the war in the past few months rather than just merely having a summary of a whole year's worth of fighting. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is a failure of the current Ongoing standards that we we don't consider an event's timeline equivalent to be sufficient with it's updates to keep an item in ITN. I get the whole "emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource" thing, but in reality, who doesn't know that already? The issue with an event like this is the page can only contain so much information before it must be split, and the reality is this phase of the war could continue for several years with heavy conflict, but eventually under current Ongoing standards the updates on the MAIN page with decrease to the point of marginal to where it is no longer Ongoing material. Sadly, prior discussion about considering child articles for Ongoing update standards was closed with consensus against such a change. I personally think such a case as this must be given exemption, but that's just me. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Opoose Don't clutter the main page for readers due to procedural ITN maintenenace issues w.r.t ongoing nominations.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How exactly would this clutter the main page? Ongoing already takes up two lines on on the main page, thanks to the Sudan conflict. Are readers really gonna be fired up when they glance upon Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)? -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding an extra link, where one suffices, as the timeline is already in that page. Don't hoist procedural issues onto the MP, placing a link there purely for ITNC !voters. —Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I looked through the latest timeline. Much of the content seems to be crystal balls as the typical entry is a prediction or promise by a politician or press release that something is going to happen.  As the items are written in proseline fashion, there's no clear follow-up to tell us the actual result.
 * And there's the outright BS such as "Fu Cong, China's Ambassador to the European Union, explained in interviews that the recently declared "friendship with no limits" between Russia and China is actually "nothing but rhetoric"..." He may well be right but how can we tell?  See the liar paradox... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support including a link to the Timeline page - Per @Knightoftheswords281. Perhaps even a link to a portal page, considering the sheer amount of articles on the topic, akin to how we blurbed the COVID-19 Pandemic? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I understand the logic of this proposal (article updates), I don't think the timeline article is particularly useful to readers clicking through from the main page. If a reader is clicking on that link, they probably want to know what the current status in the war is, not a list of events starting last November (an apparently random choice of date). Leave the entry as it is. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I periodically do exactly that (click on that link because I want to know what the current status in the war is) and it is absolutely not there. Try it for yourself. Where is significant fighting happening? Are there skirmishes happening all along the front lines, or is it relatively peaceful? I have no idea.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per rationale mentioned above. It would be nice if there were an article that both summarized the current events and provided historical context in the form of a timeline, however, that doesn't appear to exist . Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The main article already links to the timeline article. This information can be found is people want it. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;Would just add too much unnecessary clutter to the main page when readers could easily click the ongoing article link and navigate to the associated subpages. Contrary to popular opinion, people generally aren't stupid (which is not to suggest that this proposal implies such an assumption on the part of Interstellarity, of course). Kurtis (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dick Groat

 * Oppose Article needs more references. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't nominate this earlier because it's in such rough shape. If I have the time, I'll try to reference it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Woefully under-sourced. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DarkSide830. I just removed a paragraph under the first subheader that was completely unsourced, and I was unable to find anything to verify the claims made. The rest of the article isn't too much better off. (For anyone who has the time and inclination to add some new citations, I did manage to find this from 1960, which I think could be useful). Kurtis (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/blurb: Jerry Springer

 * Comment - Good reliable sources. Looks like the article was tagged as lacking information about his personal life. I don't think that's necessarily something that would hold up posting, but it is an orange tag and so it'd be a good idea to address that before posting. Only a couple sentences about the death currently as well, although I realize this news just now broke. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to create a WP:FILMOGRAPHY to cover Mr. Springer's appearances outside of Judge Jerry or The Jerry Springer Show. Currently, the prose covering his other work is extremely top-heavy, and it might be better to condense it into a table. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the tag. "Personal life" is not a requirement for such an article (especially if the information isn't available in reliable sources), and there was no elaboration on the talk page anyways.  -- Jayron 32 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm a bit surprised about the lack of a personal life section nonetheless, compared to other talk show hosts like Johnny Carson, Jay Leno or Geraldo Rivera. Jerry must have been a very private man. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, maybe the information isn't out there, maybe it is, but the burden for tagging an article with something like that is to explain what the problem is in sufficient detail for someone to be able to fix it, for example, if someone had left a list of sources on the talk page showing that the Wikipedia article was missing key information that was available elsewhere. No one did that.  Tags left without explanation can be removed without one as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for RD. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - There are usually more (or at least different) issues with RD articles than the few here. Good to see and feel it's sufficient for RD. CoatCheck (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable enough and a good article! EytanMelech 21:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's still some unsourced statements that I'm not comfortable to approve yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I'm not sure why people are saying that this is sufficient; while not littered with issues, there are still four CN tags. Considering how high-profile Springer was (I mean, I was like 15% in the process of skipping a heartbeat), I'm guessing that there's been a surge in addition of unsourced statements? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also oppose blurb - his death was not notable in of itself, meaning that under ITN law, he ought to be banished to the RD section. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 03:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see how anyone argues about him being transformative) Kirill C1 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No one has said any such thing. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, shit. I stand corrected now. This is going to be interesting. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb? A number of obits refer to the transformative nature of his work. Even The Guardian (UK, not US) article starts with "The talkshow host Jerry Springer, a former mayor of Cincinnati whose work was vastly influential in daytime TV worldwide, has died." Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll second this. This was the one show that truly rivaled and even exceeded Oprah (certainly blurb worthy when she passes, knock on wood not anytime soon) in terms of ratings during the 90s. Perhaps it’s appropriate? DrewieStewie (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure for the moment on my actual vote on a blurb, but I certainly endorse having the debate; he was quite a lot more high-profile than most other RDs. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support for RD and blurb - Jerry Springer was an icon in American media. Article is decent and gives enough history and background about Springer to any curious reader. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - but not a blurb. Work on the article fixed nearly all the issues.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose' Still one unresolved cn tag in the "acting" section. Normally one tag wouldn't be a hold up, but the unreferenced paragraph is about 30-40% of that whole section's text.  I'm afraid that probably needs to be fixed before this is ready for prime time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb Article looks in better shape. Several obits are noting his impact on television such as being a pioneer to present-day "trash TV", plus we did blurb Betty White (rightfully so). His show had also international spin-offs ranging in languages which shows his international impact. *Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!*. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb. Article is in better shape and he was a definitely notable television personality with his last name being synonymous with 'trash TV'. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not a significant or transformative figure, nor any sign in the ar/icle discussion his legacy or the like on television. We are being swayed by the "household name" factor here like the situation around Betty White, when we need to look to see if he had a serious impact on the world. --M asem (t) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure your mind is set, but I added a legacy section.
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, subject pioneered an entire genre of television. That he was competitive with Oprah understates that he was doing something completely different and much more controversial, which has since been widely replicated. BD2412  T 19:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This ^^ without Jerry Springer, there's no reality television as we know it today. Also, as a formality, Support Blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about Harry Belafonte not having a blurb, but... if Belafonte doesn't get one, and Jerry Springer does, that's prima facie evidence that our blurb criteria are broken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I 100% concur with Floquenbeam. Mr. Belafonte had a short legacy section which informed my oppose. Mr. Springer has no legacy section. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a legacy section on the article now, albeit a short one. You could always feel free to be bold and expand on it, too. 😉 Ah, the beauty of being an editor!  —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't actually have to do so. Ah, the joys of being a volunteer. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently working on a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have supported a blurb for Harry Belafonte, but when I last checked that discussion, there was fairly overwhelming support for a blurb, so I didn't weigh in before more mixed reactions developed. Now I wish I had. BD2412  T 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How about this as blurb criteria: does the death itself have its own page? Was this person at any point a head of state? If the answer to either question is "no", do not blurb it. Otherwise, we're wasting energy on whether to blurb than on improving the article to get it on the main page to begin with. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - His significance is being vastly overstated here. In the article reality television, Jerry Springer isn't even listed. This was a talk show host who was popular and good at what he did, but that does not equate to being a transformative figure in television. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A million percent agreed with Floq. But also think it is indeed broken, so color me unsurprised at further evidence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Clearly does not meet the high bar of a death blurb. I don’t think he was ever as notable as Regis Philbin, who I assume did not get a blurb. Thriley (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only did Regis not get a blurb, he didn't even get posted on RD. No one bothered to improve his article in time to meet the minimum quality standard. Go figure. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... I did try. Kurtis (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regis didn't even make it to RD as the article was largely filled with unreferenced claims at the time. Surprisingly not many votes on that proposal back then either. I would argue, though, that Springer is just as notable if not more notable than Philbin.  —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD although culturally signifying for television at a pont in time, there are many important people in the world, and a blurb needs more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD definitely good enough for RD, person is high-profile, not sure if it should be a blurb, but definitely is enough for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Article seems fine enough for RD, but not notable enough for Blurb. If this was Oprah Winfrey, then yes, she likely would be blurbed. But Springer just comes us way too short. TheCorriynial (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb. If we aren't posting Belafonte, no way we should post Springer. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the negative feedback loop that plagues ITN. "Someone else who is subjectively more important didn't get a blurb, so this person shouldn't." - Floydian τ ¢ 12:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This death has front-page coverage, which Belafonte’s death didn’t have. However, the update on the death is still too short to demonstrate significance for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Belafonte was on the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and most certainly many other newspapers. Thriley (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. NYT: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/04/26/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf —Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And this is why we can't make coverage the main criteria for ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)\
 * Because somebody said something untrue? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD at least Very notable television personality. I don't mind the inclusion of a possible blurb. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)
 * Oppose not a worldwide transformative figure. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is what RD was made for, popularity=/=blurb significance (there are few talk show hosts who would meet that) and the death itself is not a factor of news. Gotitbro (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not widely known outside his own country, unlike the figures we normally blurb (Thatcher, Mandela, popes...).  Sandstein   07:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD - As others have pointed out, blurbing a death isn't meant to be some award for an extra notable person. There's a reason why we have RD. Notable people die all the time, entropy marches on. (though I hope Springer can rest in peace now) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only deaths we should blurb should be incredibly notable figures like Elizabeth II, who's death has a profound impact on global or even national affairs. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * lol profound impact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted RD. I spotted one or two cn tags, but with an article of this length, this is still acceptable. I do not think we will get a consensus for a blurb here. --Tone 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tone PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats As usual, our readership decides for itself and the number of views was 1,857,733. That seems significantly more than most other recent deaths and so it doesn't appear that readers are having any trouble finding the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't care about reader stats at all. M asem (t) 12:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed and Andrew did the same thing for Harry Belafonte. Has no relevance to RD at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And our readers don't much care for RD entries. One can see this by considering a more routine death such as Richard Riordan, former mayor of LA.  He died on April 19 and so the immediate peak in views was 11,139.  That then subsided to 540 per day until his entry was posted at RD yesterday.  The views then increased to 2,442 so we see that RD attracted about an extra 2000 views – about the same as a mediocre DYK.  See also Wikipedia is for readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you as always for contributing all of your useful ideas on how to improve this section. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuine question @WaltCip, is this you being serious or sarcastic? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew critiques ITN a lot, mostly to point out how out of touch it is with the rest of the Wikipedia when it comes to readership or timeliness. However, I find that at times the criticism tends not to be coupled with any substantive ideas on how to actually improve ITN. It would be more welcomed if he would suggest an RfC or a proposal of some kind. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty such discussions on the talk page where I have suggested once again that we treat all RDs alike as other languages do. Per the adage that "you can't manage what you can't measure", such discussions are best informed by data and facts such as the extent to which our readership is clicking through on these entries.  See Evidence-based practice... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for the record, doesn't meet the very high bar needed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;I've been mulling it over pretty heavily over the past day (yeah, really), and although I'm sympathetic to the points made about not blurbing celebrities unless there is something significant about their death, established convention is that we do blurb celebrities who were particularly iconic and transformative; if we wish to discontinue this practice, we should probably start a discussion about it, assuming one hasn't already happened. As for Jerry Springer, I believe that the cultural impact of his talk show has been profound on a global scale. He opened the flood gates for both "trash TV" (as it's called) and for that brand of off-color entertainment as a whole, which has left an indelible mark on society that goes beyond its original medium. In short, I do consider him a transformative figure, and I think he is significant enough for a blurb based on our long-established standards. Kurtis (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Global scale? Sorry, but it's that kind of silly hype that instantly triggers my opposition. Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Springer's initial impact on popular culture is that he popularized trashy, lowbrow entertainment for North Americans. This had a domino effect that impacted other genres of TV, namely the comedy and reality genres&mdash;and because America is a cultural superpower, its fads and phenomena tend to spread into other countries around the world. If you want references, this writer certainly agrees with me, and I could link many more. However, keep in mind that my assessment of his legacy is still just an opinion; many people would disagree with the conclusions I've drawn, and I don't consider them to be "incorrect" for adopting a different view from my own. I'm not trying to sway anyone into my line of thinking&mdash;I'm voicing support for giving Springer a blurb and explaining why I feel he merits one. If you're inclined to disagree (as seems to be the case), then I encourage you to voice your opposition. At this point, consensus is unlikely to develop in favor of giving him anything more than an RD listing. Kurtis (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I try very hard to avoid posting silly, hyped up opinions here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Pay me no heed as I continue to flaunt my hyperbolic silliness at ITN. Kurtis (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb His show was so fake that Wayans Bros. parodied it while being on it. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per andrew’s analysis. 107.77.223.214 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Oppose RD due to multiple gaps in referencing. Strong Oppose Blurb No where near the level of significance we look for when considering death blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled Way too many  tags.  Schwede  66  22:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've fixed up most of the CN tags, . Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging the actual @Schwede66. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reposted When I hid the article from display, it was in second position. When I unhid the article just now, it’s in fourth place. I do not know what ITN-practice is. Should the article go back to second place?  Schwede 66  17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine as-is. It had already been up for a few days before the pull.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) World's Strongest Man

 * Comment Hooper's article is a stub and the contest's article primarily consists of tables with little prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Four sentences PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - currenly a Stub. If/when expanded, please ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on, man I actually like WSM, but you know this has a 0% chance of being posted. Unlike boxing- which I would be happy to see on ITN every now and then- WSM doesn't get spectators, doesn't get TV ratings, and doesn't get media coverage except as a curiosity. It's so unimportant that the event actually ended four days ago and it took any news outlets (the few that bothered to write an article, based on my news search) a couple of days to even notice. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this can somehow be expanded with secondarily-sourced prose, then I might be tempted to throw my support behind this as it would be an interesting topic that doesn't get much coverage on ITN usually. However, we have pretty regularly shot down beauty pageants on ITN, and so I find myself wondering if this would fall into the same category of novelty. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - On second thought, it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, especially given the lag of coverage that Kicking222 refers to. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event - well, if you really believe that, than you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to make a less subjective significance standard, I counterpoint you to the new thread I made on WT:ITN today. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see why this is even a nomination, just because some guy got a title, doesn't make it important. His article is still a stub, and there is tons of problems to be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did Curbon already do the deed? We found another occurrence of 5426387 doing something that isn't "Per above"! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you mean pay the $5, than I don't think so. However, he is indeed the reason why Editor isn't replying with per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor not doing "Per above" anymore is great. Curbon refusing to pay his debt is disappointing. I propose from today onward every day he doesn't pay up, he has to pay another 5 dollars. I am joking, of course... unless... TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm not sure if this is this is any officially recognized sport event. Alex-h (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This gets very little coverage in the media, so this is not something currently In The News. Often, as said by WaltClip, we shoot down beauty pageants pretty often, and I find these comparable. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose - trivial. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Comparatively trivial with little media coverage. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - all this talk about lacking any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, when we frequently post and the like dart championships that barely receive any major coverage. The whole "but those are WP:ITNR" argument doesn't cut it because you're basically saying that since the nombox is green instead of blue, its somehow more worthy of being posted to ITN. By the way, I'm not opposed to dart championships and the like being posted, but at least have some consistency. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty funny support, in that you provide zero reasons for supporting besides "we post darts". It obviously doesn't matter, since this will never be posted, but I did get a chuckle out of it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am open to posting non-ITNR sport events. However, I agree with the notion by TheBlueSkyClub that this is more akin to a beauty pageant, just with a lot more testosterone. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a disaster. 95% of the article is just tables sourced to a single source, which itself has very little prose.  Absolutely none of the actual prose in the body of the article (outside the lede) has any references, and the article as a whole could use with some more prose synopses of the individual events and of the championship as a whole.  No way this is main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Finbar Cafferkey

 * Comment Notable? Skeptical. Curbon7 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Dantewada bombing

 * Oppose Article is not in-depth enough. Close to a stub. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:19, 01 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance The Naxalite insurgency has been ongoing for over 50 years; while fighting has been decreasing, it is by no means uncommon, particularly in Chhattisgarh. Curbon7 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Billy "The Kid" Emerson

 * Oppose Discography section is entirely unsourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Aperiodic set from a single prototile

 * Oppose—Does not appear notable enough for 'In the News'. Compusolus (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose. this is great, but the result was reported last month, so the news is now stale.  the finding was actually nominated last month too, but the nomination was closed without a consensus to post.  dying (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Certainly a cool discovery but I'm afraid this was nominated a bit too late. Could be a great DYK factoid though if you expand it enough. The blurb would also need to be rephrased to something like "A new shape, a single prototile that never repeats in a grid known as "Einstein's Hat", has been discovered." —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be back The main obstacle when this was first nominated was that the paper was waiting on peer review. This still seems to be the situation and so we're waiting for that ponderous process to conclude.  Don't hold your breath... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Dying PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem with science blurbs is always the question of when to post, at discovery or at publication; ironically, in this very discussion there is disagreement on that. Problem also comes down to "sexy science" vs. science that is equally cool/important but not as flashy. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was nominated when first reported a month ago. That nomination failed because the paper hadn't been peer-reviewed. Well it still hasn't got through peer review, so whatever we think of the importance it isn't suitable for posting yet. Re-nominate if/when the tiling has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Even the Guardian story linked above is from 3 April, so I don't know why you put this nomination in the 26 April section.) <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose even with a peer review article, the WP article is lacking a quality I'd expect for general readership, pointing out how niche this concept is without a clear apication beyond affirming prior theory. --M asem (t) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a problem that got solved, big deal, did we post the last time this happened? No, not notable enough for ITN, and wasn't this already nominated before? Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tangaraju Suppiah

 * Support - Article looks solid and draws attention to what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for the crime that was alleged ("proven"?) to have been committed. Did not know this was going on in Singapore and I'm sure readers will be surprised to learn about this case too. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine to me. But please don't insert political opinions into the nom itself (killing=/=execution). Gotitbro (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a political statement to refer to it as a killing. That's what it is. Singapore (more specifically, the executioner) killed someone. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is good enough for RD, in both citation quality and length. Also, +1 to what Gotitbro said. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has huge unsourced sections and large paragraphs that are sourced solely to a substack post and a primary source. Not appropriate for main page in its current state - particularly as this concerns a legal matter pertaining to living people. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ITNRD is for biographies, while this current page, Execution of Tangaraju Suppiah, is focused on the exectution.—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As you know, we did post the killing of Brianna Ghey to RD; at the same time, I'm sure we've done the contrary, which is not post a "death of..." article to RD for that reason. I'm not sure there is a strong consensus one way or the other. Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manfred Weiss (composer)

 * Support Saw this yesterday, article looks good. Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Winfried Bischoff

 * Very light for a 60-year career in finance. One unreferenced paragraph. Stephen 04:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Kabal explosions

 * Oppose on quality as article still needs expansion. . The Kip (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability as well, per Kurtis. Tragic incident, but unfortunately not unusual for the region. The Kip (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Kip. Additionally, even with the miniscule amount of text, there's some sourcing issues already.  Needs a big expansion with reliably sourced text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;I hate to say it, but much like school shootings in the United States or Al Shabaab attacks in Somalia, terrorist incidents in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are an unfortunately common occurrence. For one to merit being added to the main page, it would need to be exceptional in some form or fashion; think along the lines of the mosque bombing in Peshawar a few months ago, which claimed the lives of 82 people. While I do think that a death toll of 17 is slightly above average, I'm not convinced that it quite reaches the threshold we would expect for a terrorist attack in Pakistan to be featured on ITN. Kurtis (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As much as I disagree with you, as someone who basically thinks that article = ITN eligibility, I will applaud you for applying the same standard used for US shootings on ITNC to other human-inflicted mass casualty events. I was actually thinking about this yesterday after reading about yet another attack in Mali, if we were to actually have whipped up these articles for these events in shape, ITN would have become a Mali-attack ticker, and the thing is that at least some of the people who oppose US mass shootings because "we don't want ITN to turn into US-shooting-pedia" would have stayed quiet about it. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 20:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional support - article meets WP:NEVENTS IMO, so eligible to be posted to ITN by default (again IMO). Needs a lot of work however. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is not how blurbing works and you know that, as that is what a proposal you strongly supported on the talk page proposes. You are of course entitled to !vote by your own standards as you see fit, but it is disingenuous to act like that is now some agreed upon project standard when on the contrary it met stark opposition. Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I near stated that it was a widely accepted practice though? I guess I should have added IMO after default. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 10:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * heavily implies like this is some consensus, looking at it from the perspective of a new user. Curbon7 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the issue is in what he said. It technically is eligible to be posted. It's just a matter of whether it meets the individual significance criteria, but that in itself does not compromise eligibility. You can be eligible for apply to a job if you meet the minimum qualifications, but that doesn't mean you'll automatically be hired. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Curbon. This isn't a widely accepted consensus; it was heavily opposed by many at the proposal who are active around ITN/C. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose given this looks like an unintentional fire (setting off an ammo cache), this is likely not appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 13:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Parkash Singh Badal

 * Support I don't see many citation issues after a quick glance. Also, the article is PARKash Singh Badal, not PRAKash Singh Badal. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and I have changed the linked article per Rush. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to me. Fahads1982 تبادلۂ خیال Fahads1982 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks fine. Alex-h (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over a handful of citation needed tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on it! Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All cn tags filled in. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The added bare links need formatting.  Per WP:ITNCRIT: References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on that aswell. Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed; posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Harry Belafonte

 * Oppose, with regret I would've thought that Belafonte's article would be in a much better state than it is, but how it is now is a real shame for someone so important. It's missing a ton of citations and there's several orange section tags. I do hope work can be done on it so he can get on the Main Page. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article's looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm changing my vote to Support. Good work to the editors who got this article sourced. Neutral on blurb, as I often am. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Day-O. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article needs work but groundbreaking singer and notable activist. He was technically an EGOT through his honorary Oscar win. --38.106.246.204 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD once fixed, oppose blurb for now Rock Hall Hall of Famer, the man that brought Calypso to many people's attention, had one of the first LPs (albums) to sell a million copies, involved with USA for Africa and We Are the World. But, I don't think he's big enough for a blurb, unless the blurb has something mentioning a connection his HOF record, or mentions Calypso (album) somewhere in it. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He pretty much bankrolled much of Dr. King's work and actually held back his professional career (which was still transformative) to devote time to the civil rights movement. That certainly ticks the boxes for a blurb once the article's issues are corrected. rawmustard (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending the addition of citations where they're needed. An extremely iconic and influential music artist. Kurtis (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality as the guy who created the global calypso craze, he's probably the greatest calypso singer ever. However, the article will need a lot of work. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article's looking good.


 * Support blurb once fixed He had two distinguished careers, one in entertainment and one in politics at a critical moment for the civil rights movement. His work and death have made waves far outside the US. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Before the discussion RD/blurb continues, the article has so many issues (sourcing, mainly) that it is not ready for any of the two. Fix the article first, then the discussion can continue in a meaningful way. --Tone 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees that the article is in need of additional citations before it is added to the main page, which means that the focus of the conversation has naturally diverted towards the element that isn't so clear-cut&mdash;whether it should receive a full blurb once ready, or just an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * & : Article has been significantly improved since death was reported. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Major figure across multiple fields. The Kip (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Article is in really bad quality. Will support when fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. if/when fixed, Oppose on quality for now. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers :) Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb when fixed, also think its not that far off rn either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Idk if its the impossibly high standard that Americans have to be considered significant here or what but Belafonte is significantly more than a transformative musician, and he was that, he was also a significant, maybe even instrumental, figure in the civil rights movement in the US. Bill Russell déjà vu tbh, but maybe its just that era of American history doesnt really register with international or younger audiences, but the I dont know who he is argument is a reason to click the link and try to find that out more than a reason to oppose here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, needs fixes to sourcing. When that is fixed, I would support RD only; blurbs are not rewards we grant extra important people, they are a means of conveying information.  Merely noting that a person has died, without any elaboration on it, is what the RD link was created for.  If we need to explain the manner of his death as unusual or bearing special explanation, then that is what a blurb is for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Originally I was going to jump on board the bandwagon and support a blurb based on the feedback given above, but as I think about it, I'm finding that Jayron32's argument is also persuasive. The "transformative" criteria on WP:ITNRD is just as subjective as any of our other significance criteria. He's tops in his field, but we've turned down plenty of people who are tops in their field. (If InedibleHulk were here, he'd be crowing "old man dies" just as he always had before.) But I can be swayed, and as one not familiar with his work, I'd sure like to know what makes him "greatest of the great" besides just "great". --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Never heard of him, which is my personal minimal requirement for a blurb.  Sandstein   20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...really? I had never heard of Desmond Tutu before he died, does that mean I should have opposed his nom? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an invalid reason, and no more arbitrary than the oft-touted "Thatcher/Mandela" standard. When the definition for "transformative figure" is as nebulous and open-ended as it is, anyone can have literally any reason for opposing a blurb, and it is no less valid than someone else's reason. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm considering shifting all deaths to RD, regardless of "sIgNiFiCaNcE," or at the very least all non heads-of-state deaths. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also am also opposed to a a blurb, but "I personally never heard of him, so fuck him" is an excessively parochial and self-aggrandizing metric for blurb RDs. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair interpretation of Sandstein's rationale. What he said was not intended to denigrate Belafonte or the impact that he has had within his field and beyond&mdash;he just opposes a blurb for someone who he hasn't heard of because, from his perspective, lack of familiarity means that the person being discussed can't be that famous. I disagree with his rationale, but I wouldn't classify it as "parochial and self-aggrandizing". Kurtis (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The argument is absolutely valid. Sandstein doesn't present it as a universal criterion that all editors, who haven't heard of him, should oppose a blurb but rather uses it as own indicator to support the vote. If someone else, who hasn't heard of someone, didn't oppose a blurb in the past is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb once all sourcing issues are addressed. Influential and widely honored performer and activist. Funcrunch (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb While it's true that he had a successful career and transformed calypso music, his overall contribution to music in the 20th century is not that influential. His notability is far from that of his contemporaries Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis or Charlie Parker. I also don't think that the honorary Oscar he won and his activism raise him to the level for a blurb (a honorary Oscar is a ceremonial award). More importantly, his death is barely front-page news (I had to scroll down a lot to find the news on the BBC.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/25/harry-belafonte-staggering-screen-career-sci-fi-love-triangle
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/25/steve-mcqueen-hero-harry-belafonte-tarzan-12-years-a-slave Kirill C1 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked on The Guardian’s front page, and the news covers a minor corner on the bottom left. Thanks for helping me to confirm my initial observation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Using Sandstein’s “I haven’t heard of him” test, I’d call Belafonte more notable than Parker. I’ve heard of Belafonte & I’ve heard “Day-O”. I haven’t heard of Parker. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too BhamBoi (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb - thanks for saying what I was thinking. -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 20:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://variety.com/2023/music/news/harry-belafonte-best-songs-1235594095/ Kirill C1 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD When weighted against the points per Kiril. CoatCheck (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD article needs work, but pretty notable person who excelled in 2 fields. not sure if it belongs as a blurb, but definitely a important figure for RD. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article looks in way better shape than it was when his death was first reported. Belafonte was top of his field and was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll hall of fame with a distinguished career. Nearly an EGOT winner too and an influencial civil rights activist with close connections with MLK. Blurb worthy in my opinion. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Great man in many ways, but it would be totally inconsistent to blurb him after all the other people of equal or greater merit we have ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD–finally, after ~8 hours of work, we finally managed to fix all the issues in the article! I might've caused a few errors; feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails   Wx  01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)\
 * Support blurb with further improvements This is a bio that clearly demonstrates a legacy beyond just being a notable singer. This type of quality bio is what we want to feature. --M asem (t) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in general, preference for blurb Article looks good for posting. I would agree that the distinguished legacy with regards to calypso and thus its influences makes this a clear candidate for a death blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Internationally notable and transformative figure through his music and activism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Colin Powell, the first black Secretary of State and major figure in both Gulf Wars didn’t get a blurb. Belafonte lived an amazing and noble life, but I don’t think he meets the high bar of a blurb. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Stats Our readership is already reading the article regardless and there were 677,886 views yesterday. That seems typical for such stars who usually get about half a million views on the news of their death.  For example, Barry Humphries peaked at 379,924 and Len Goodman at 491,046.  To stand out, a superstar needs to go up an order of magnitude and get millions of views.  See Famous deaths in 2022 for some comparative stats.  Note that the similar case of Sidney Poitier was first run at RD and then got a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Blurbs are reserved for only a handful of highly important individuals. While Belafonte has no doubt achieved fame, he doesn't rise to that level when compared against similar figures that we haven't blurbed in the past. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, now that the article is improved, and soon please: people have read that he died and will wonder what Wikpedia is doing when coming with that "news" late. I'm neutral on a blurb that doesn't say much more than that he died. How about - for a compromise - have his picture, and not the face but the iconic lead image of him singing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * RD posted as quality improved. Discussion on blurb can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Per @Knightoftheswords281 and @Jayron32 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb as it currently is "Singer, actor and activist". That encapsulates him perfectly and explains his historical significance to the "I've never heard of him" crowd and the "He's only a singer" crowd. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He helped organize the March on Washington, was the 1st solo singer to make an album that sold 1,000,000 copies, was the black man to win an Emmy & the 1st black man to win a Tony. That seems notable enough for a blurb to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 's consistency in applying a standard (albeit a personal one) for death blurbs needs to be appreciated and raises a question whether death blurbs (beyond unusual death ones) need to be done away with altogether due to a significantly higher back and forth and opposition and subjectivity than usual ITN noms. A clearer picture might emerge with an official RfC/consensus on this subject. Gotitbro (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the standard I apply is absolutely not a personal one. It's the standard I read at WP:ITNRD, which states, as part of a longer elaboration on what standards to apply, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. 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."  I merely was paraphrasing those instructions.  I was not applying my own standard.  I would never do that, at least, not where there are such well written standards already in place, which have been so for years.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We blurbed Kumar, Shane Warne, Betty White, former Portugal,Philippine presidents Kirill C1 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Random thought, and I know it hasn't happened in awhile, but it doesn't seen likely, but maybe a Photo RD? The RD is already accepted, and could be middle ground for those that don't support a blurb. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no procedure for photo RD, and so it's even less likely you'll get an agreement for one of those. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd expect a longer 'Legacy' section for someone who would be considered transformative enough to merit a blurb. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose largely per Walt. I won't act like I'm an expert on Belafonte, having not actually heard of him before now, but just gleaning what I can about him, we're talking about someone who was fairly notable for multiple things, but not largely notable for any of them. Ultimately, the civil rights accomplishments of Belafonte are his most notable, but the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past. That's nothing against Belafonte - it's just a matter of the standards we have for ITN deaths. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past, well, possibly, but maybe we should change that? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I'm generally opposed to death blurbs for achievement in general, as evidenced by the discussion related to this topic some time back. Ergo, I'm certainly not starting this trend. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Influential civil rights activist, his album was the first million-selling LP by a single artist and he was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (already depicts his impact in the music industry) and he was an EGOT (depicts his influence as an actor). Article is also in fantastic shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked ready for a blurb. There is a fairly clear consensus to do so, and most of the Opposes are "well we didn't post X, so why should we post Y?" Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unmarked because the marking rationale is false. There's only one vote opposing because we didn't post Colin Powell. Please first carefully read the discussion before taking action. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Remarked as Ready because Amakuru and HiLo48's rationale's were exactly the same without actually naming anyone (and there's also an "Oppose because I've never heard of him"). I won't revert again, but many of these rationales are really weak. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is rationale for blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/26/calypso-jazz-orchestral-ballads-the-astonishing-range-of-harry-belafonte
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/25/belafonte-is-gone-poitier-went-before-him-they-were-the-titans-who-uplifted-our-world
 * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/26/harry-belafonte-activism-civil-rights-movement Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for RD (obviously). I'm really not opposed to blurb, an EGOT winner and influential civil rights persona should satisfy blurb requirements. Estar8806 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb for the record. I had withheld judgment before actually !voting. For all the remarking about how excellent his legacy is, that section of his article is lacking, which tells me that his legacy is overstated and not transformative. I suggest people who are involved in the blurb discussion should not be trying to mark it as ready when the consensus is not unanimous. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Black Kite did not include a rationale at all in their vote. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe read more of the article, like . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb While an important figure, we have declined quite a few nominees for a blurb with a stronger claim to significance. I also note that there are still a few gaps in referencing before this can be posted to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , the article has already been posted to RD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 I missed that. I am not going to advocate pulling it, but there are enough gaps that I would not have posted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the page was untagged at the time of posting. The paragraph on the Smothers Brothers was partially sourced by its entry further down in his television works. —Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb looking at the article, I don't see how he was "transformative" in his field. Yes, he had a distinguished career as a musician and actor, and was significantly involved in the Civil Rights Movement. To me however, he falls short of the high bar we set for death blurbs. YD407OTZ (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, of course. But oppose blurb as he’s not notable for his death, and thus belongs at RD. BhamBoi (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment His death is documented in only one sentene, which is the minimum update for the death of any ordinary person. Looking back at recently posted death blurbs, there seems to be plenty of content (see Pelé for example). Is it really that no more content can be added regarding his death? Isn’t it possible to, at least, mention the commemorations around the world or provide some information on the funeral? I’m afraid that the quality of the blurb isn’t sufficient for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) India officially surpasses China population wise

 * Wait until the sources are in agreement. This is obviously significant enough news to merit a blurb, but we need to be 100% sure that it has actually happened before doing so. Kurtis (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should agree to post this at the end of the month? That looks to be the date when most sources agree India will have definitively surpassed China in population (otherwise we can post it sooner but I don't think it makes sense to delay posting this beyond the end of April). Flyingfishee (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per this, "Population experts using previous data from the UN have projected India’s population would surpass China’s in April, but the global body’s latest report did not specify a date" (emphasis added). That source also states this will happen by the end of June, citing the UN State of World Population report.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pending official confirmation This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target bolded article List of countries and dependencies by population is an absolute mess of unverified data. The population figure in the table for India (and probably other countries as well) can not be found in the source provided. The date for India in the table is listed as 1 March 2023, whereas the date for China is 31 December 2022, so the table is not comparing "like for like". The dates in the table do not match the dates in the footnotes. The source for the India population figure is dated July 2020, and is woefully out of date. The 1 March 2023 date in the table for India does not match the July 2020 date of the projection in the original source. It appears likely that one or more editors are updating the population numbers in the table with little regard for providing a source and the date on which the population figure was extracted. Chrisclear (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It just seems like some sources have not had their access-dates updated with time, which doesn't appear to be a huge issue. DecafPotato (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, unfortunately it is not 'just' that simple. The issue you described is one of the many issues that I observed. As just one example, in the 2 hours since my previous comment, the table now has India at #2, with a new (lower) population figure, which is again, not in the source provided. It's difficult to take the table seriously when it's being "updated" like this with random unverified data multiple times a day. Chrisclear (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - It feels like I've seen this headline 50 times in the last five years. As others have said, if we have official confirmation that India has overtaken China, I think it'd be notable enough to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the same reason I opposed this last week. The target article currently says "China - 1,411,750,000, India - 	1,392,329,000".  We can't post an article that contradicts the blurb we are posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even the Guardian article says "According to the UN’s projections, which are calculated through a variety of factors.." - in other words they don't actually know, they're sticking out a headline based on the UN's guess.  In reality, even though the event has probably occurred, we won't have genuine knowledge on this until India does another census. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The nominated article is orange-tagged and states, "Because the compiled figures are not collected at the same time in every country, or at the same level of accuracy, the resulting numerical comparisons may create misleading conclusions." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has significantly changed since the last nom for this to be posted. It still has not happened (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and no exact dates exist for such projections.
 * Also, there is a reason census figures are prioritized on enwiki, relying on projections is always problematic. If census figures are not immediate, we should tally projections from multiple agencies and wait till they are all on the same page, UNPF is not the only agency tracking pop figures. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close There is literally no way to verify this information, and sources don't agree on it. Also, why even nominate the article when you admit that the info might not be true? -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Probably the best time to post this would have been in the previous nomination when the announcement was made, because now that we've held ourselves to this standard of waiting until it actually happens, we have no way of ever being sure that we've officially crossed the threshold. So it's a moot exercise. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the page has not even been updated to say India has more people, and there is really no way to verify such thing because the news are saying different things. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) 2023 Asia heat wave

 * Proposed altblurb II for the sake of it, but still undecided on notability. The Kip (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not very significant for a heatwave. We saw hundreds of deaths across Canada and the US last year from a heatwave.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Noah. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I stated in my previous nom, its happening, its receiving WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS is and shall remain a non-existent policy. Plus, this affects a lot more countries than the American-Canadian one (not to say that shouldn't have been posted). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 01:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb II is probably best as it emphasises that this heatwave is affecting an entire region and is therefore even more notable than one which only affects one country. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Knightoftheswords281 but none of the blurbs so far give a balanced account of the event in my opinion. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The target article does not present this as a coherent single phenomenon – just as a series of incidents. The blurb is improper synthesis with its vague talk of a heat wave.  Insofar as there's a proximate cause, it seems to be a developing El Niño but the article says nothing about that.  Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support altblurb II mainly because of the quality. Meets the bare minimum but I do think this could still be expanded further, as this is already a major heat wave event in this part of Asia. Vida0007 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb II as extent of heatwave is shown to be significant and, like the American heatwaves they are record-breaking events. Whilst list could be expanded more, it meets the requirement for ITN. Happily888 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nikolay Bortsov

 * Oppose Article needs expansion, and also no mention of his death anywhere. Support Article has been fixed, no longer a stub and now there is mention of his death. Should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated to include his death, Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a tagged awards section.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , good catch. I've gone ahead and hidden that section. The ru.wiki version of the article is also inconsistent with that section; some entries are unsourced and others that are are deadlinks. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon depart their shows

 * Oppose - too niche, basically two employees were let go by two companies today. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per your argument that ITN stories should be front page news somewhere, see the front pages of the following: BBC, France24, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Le Monde, LA times, WSJ, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, PBS, CBC, Toronto Starr, etc. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 04:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Im aware this is the top story among competitors of both companies, but this is still ultimately trivia, and will be ephemeral in that status, and I dont see why we should feature these two people being let go over any CEO or cut football player or manager of a local dairy queen. This is Kardashian level news, like the the coronation nomination to come. Thats going to be widely covered too, but I dont really think it is news. Maybe thats my own cultural gatekeeping on display, idk tbh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Coronation is Kardashian-level news. Gotcha. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically, family of little importance makes large spectacle on live, but highly scripted, television. Am I missing something here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you just stated that your criteria was that it was on the front page of outlets somewhere? Now you're cutting out exceptions to stories you don't like, even if they are plastered all over the frontpage. Additionally, stating that the Royal family is of limited importance is WP:OR. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 05:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A. Yes, that is my minimum criteria, I guess I put entertainment news in its own category. If either of these people were to die tomorrow would we blurb them? No is my guess, and if we wouldnt blurb their death why would we blurb their job status? Second, OR is about article content. Im not writing in British royal family "of limited importance". But thats really not all that relevant to this discussion, so we can save that particular tiff for another day. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is notable, its happening, its in the news, and its likely to have long lasting impact. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If "long-lasting impact" means the whole 43 minutes, then that's indeed long... Howard the Duck (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment You don't have to list creators from 20 years ago Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — See previous comments. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - major in the USA but of little interest to anyone else.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not 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 (from ITN voting guidelines). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 05:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree this is "major" news in the US. It's getting a lot of coverage, certainly, but this boils down to "two companies fired employees". 331dot (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close one of the least relevant news ever nominated here. Congrats. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose prominent firings occur all the time, and although may generate a high level of press coverage for a short amount of time, such coverage is routine. This is too routine for ITN. We don't want ITN to devolve into tabloid-level coverage of the latest scandals or gossip at [insert organisation here].  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Men leave jobs" isn't really headline grabbing news outside the USA.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. If a TV host resigned or was fired in any other country in the world, editors would have the common sense to realise that it's not a big deal for a worldwide audience. Chrisclear (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: José Aníbal Díaz

 * Oppose Article is very bare bones, and needs expanding before it can get my !vote of support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tarek Fatah

 * This needs some cleanup and there are some citation tags that need to be taken care of. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  15:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more. Mostly ready though. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Floydian, I would be glad to support if other citation issues are solved. There still exist some tense issues. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  03:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , all referencing issues have been fixed! Tails   Wx  04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support no issues, though feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails   Wx  04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support The lede is not good, the "Assassination plot" section is odd, and the sectioning in general is ... unique. Otherwise the article looks sufficient; it appears to be well-cited, holistic, minimal proseline issues. Curbon7 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved assassination plot to reception. Rushtheeditor (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to me. Fahads1982 تبادلۂ خیال - Fahads1982 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . El_C 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since all six RD entries, somehow, had been posted less than 24 hours ago, gonna wait a day before posting. El_C 07:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-. Sorry Gerda, there's no point in me waiting if no one else is. El_C 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted): Len Goodman

 * Has appeared in TV programmes in UK and US - so it has more than a local impact. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Size or scope of impact is no longer a criteria for recent deaths, given that it is subjective. The main page currently includes an Australian priest and local media personality, and an Indian state legislator. The only criteria is the quality of the article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Filomgraphy section is unsourced. The rest of the article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support His grandfather worked as a costermonger, selling fruit and vegetables. Young Len would help out on the barrow in Bethnal Green and would dip wilted celery into ice-cold water to stiffen the stalks and make it look fresh. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, but in what way is that a supporting argument for posting this to RD? GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Celery is a prized foodstuff in the East End. Jellied eels are so over-estimated. Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Len's pickled walnuts were also quite big in Dartford, allegedly. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As this appears to be your first contribution on ITN, I would like to inform you that Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD (this is stated in if the parameter for "recent death" is set to yes). -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wilko Johnson? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once article becomes a perfect ten, currently have to give a seven. Filmography should be easy enough to fix, as several sources in the main article could be used. TheCorriynial (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and, I have taken the liberty of sourcing that section so hopefully we can get a Ten for Len!  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ten points goes to Len Goodman. Thanks for the work. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great job, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a question over his place of birth. Please see the Talk page. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Im happy now to score a ten. *Up comes the ten card.* TheCorriynial (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable in the UK and as other users have said notable elsewhere. Article also looks very good. greyzxq  talk 16:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks suitable for RD. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good for RD to me! Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dzhasharbek Uzdenov

 * Oppose Article is currently a stub, and needs expanding. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Nikolay Bortsov

 * Oppose Article needs expansion, and also no mention of his death anywhere. Support Article has been fixed, no longer a stub and now there is mention of his death. Should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated to include his death, Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Bed Bath & Beyond

 * Oppose Not a "death" or significant enough an event to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its no IKEA, Its a Brick and Mortar store with limited geographic and cultural presence, nor is it affecting global economic markets in any significant way. In short lacks significance.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   21:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixing error in nom in which it stated this was a recent deaths nom. (It wasn't.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose good faith nom - its received some coverage, but doesn't seem to be notable enough for positing IMHO. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 23:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Typical business news. BB&B is nothing like Microsoft or Apple if they suddenly announced bankruptcy. --M asem (t) 23:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as routine business news. Is it just me that thinks "Bed Bath & Beyond" sounds like a very niche adult entertainment genre?  OK, just me then. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite receiving some coverage, Bed Bath & Beyond is not really a major company. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 00:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I’m certain the folks who work there don’t feel this way, this news lacks any major significance. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) London Marathon

 * Support looks good, no CN tags, and its not just a table wall. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN/R and should be included just on the new record anyway, but DYK usually bars articles that have been on the main page in bold, and that hook was a basic CRYSTAL failure (how would you know they wouldnt have a case of explosive diarrhea the morning of the event and had to pull out for example)? Would prefer it be pulled from DYK and posted here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb to cover both mens and womens events as per standard. --M asem (t) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb should emphasise the men's winner setting the second fastest marathon time in history, and fastest ever London marathon time. Flyingfishee (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like a bit more on the race itself ideally but wouldn't oppose on that, but those tenses etc. needs updating first. -- KTC (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is in good shape, except the 'race summary' stops when the races start and doesn't even mention who won. It needs a few sentences on each of the elite races, describing what happened, who look the lead when, who the winners were, the record-breaking time etc. Should be an easy fix, then altblurb can be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - has fixed the article nicely. Seems ready to me, with the altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The problems noted above seem to have been fixed. Looks good to go.  Altblurb is how we usually report these things.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Article is good to go. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well-referenced. The altblurb is more concise.^^Maxxies (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb Galobtter (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I think it’d be good if the blurb mentioned that Kiptum ran the 2nd fastest marathon ever. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UK Emergency Alert System

 * Oppose And…? Regions and countries around the world have already done so. Far from being ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff we report has happened before somewhere else. ITN/R exists purely to list items which keep recurring.  Novelty or uniqueness is therefore not a requirement. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mundane news item - most countries have an emergency broadcast system which gets updated with time, there's no particularly reason to single the UK's update out. --M asem (t) 15:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and the state of Illinois tests their tornado warning system the first Tuesday of the month at 10 am monthly. Maybe put that it in ITN/R too? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A test going largely as planned with no significant reported failures, side effects or repercussions is not ITN material. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose My phone didn't even go off. It appears a number of people's didn't. I think we only post failed tests when they belong to companies headed by Elon Musk. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just turned emergency alerts off on my phone. It seems mundane because the Americans had such a system for years before we did so its not like its groundbreaking technology.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 16:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Zahoor Hussain Khoso

 * Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to me. Fahads1982 تبادلۂ خیال - Fahads1982 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Amritpal Singh

 * Oppose Another arrest rather than a trial. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the thousandth time: the arrests are not ITN material. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In general, individual arrests are not suitable for ITN. I've been in favour of covering mass arrests in the past, depending on the circumstances, and I was content with posting Donald Trump's arraignment. But this is not like either of those things. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Granted, this is a bigger event than a mere arrest - it's a bizarre situation tied into wider events. As an outsider, Amritpal Singh manhunt seems a massive over-reaction by the authorities, and Singh is a political leader as well as an accused criminal. But I don't think it's significant enough for ITN, at least not yet. If the arrest, trial and/or outcome lead to bigger protests (more than the existing 2023 Sikh protests), I'll be willing to reconsider. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not an event that can be suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Malindi cult

 * We do not use IAR to deal with stale moving news. We can't force news to happen. Also, the article needs a lot of serious work to get anywhere close to posting. M asem (t) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR was used when the East Palestine train derailment was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close Stale news and article that is nowhere near ready for MP exposure. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose An arrest has been made but the trial is pending and so the matter is sub judice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No reference to any specific individual as perpetrator appears in the proposed blurb. The victims are dead whether or not some of the specifics of their deaths are sub judice. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - this death count and the unusual nature of the story appears to merit posting, but the article does need some work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Amakuru. This is an interesting item indeed, but I'm not quite sure when and where the apex of this story's newsworthiness is. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This CBS article from over a week ago discusses this, but not particularly in-depth. I think there is potential merit to this nomination on paper, but I agree with Masem that . Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, body count has raisen to 59 (source). Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - Not stale, as it's a developing story. And both the high death toll and the unusual circumstances are factors that incline me to support posting this when it's ready. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. I often dislike the criterion quite a few people use (death toll), but I feel it's difficult to ignore 59 dead, which paired with the incredibly unusual circumstances I would support. That many people dying from such a thing should be ITN-worthy in my opinion. Article still isn't great, though. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now, so full Support. Thanks, Knight for bringing it up to standard! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, article isn't ready . Bizarre incident with a high death toll; I've added an altblurb. However the article is very brief and half the content is about Mackenzie's earlier activities, not this cult or the mass grave. Needs major expansion to become postable. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article seems fine now, and the death toll has risen. I wouldn't include the number of rescued in the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru. Article needs work, but a highly unusual event with an unfortunate death toll. Proposed a slightly-differently-worded altblurb 2. The Kip (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article needs some expansion and rewriting; it seems rather scattershot in the narrative, the lead is not a proper summary of the article, the body doesn't cover material in the lead, etc.  The story is being covered right now, so it clearly isn't stale, but the article needs work to be ready for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per below. Article looks solid now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've just significantly expanded the article. I still need to expand the section regarding the actual newsworthy incident; the mass starvations, but I'll get them done tonight. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Modest Genius, @Jayron32, @GenevieveDEon, @WaltCip, @Amakuru. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Thanks for expanding the article Knightoftheswords281. The number of victims is now 73 according to Reuters. In the same news article, 112 people are reported missing. Maxxies (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - continues to be plastered across the news in Kenya, see for eg The Standard's front page and The Star's. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Excellent example of something that was recently discussed on WT:ITN, a news story that slowly developed over the course of a few weeks. The brand-new article that resulted looks very good, and the story itself is of course particularly major and atrocious. Seems like a solid subject for us to feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when we allow consensus and development to actually play out rather than closing things super-fast like. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks holistic now and is ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – but blurb should be rewritten to emphasise the deaths. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 3 or alt blurb 4 It’s an unfortunate & important story w/a high death toll. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mudar Badran

 * Oppose Much of the content is not sourced and, in view of what the nominator states, there should be a more detailed and in-depth explanation of Badran's political career and tenure as PM. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of the Montevideo Maru

 * oppose - would have been worth posting in 1942, but my dear Kinghtoftheswords281, if at once you dont succeed try try again is great advice for life, it is not for attempting to lower the bar to what is considered worthy of posting to ITN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in reasonably good shape. The discovery of the wreck has attracted global interest. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb needs work, but there is merit this nom. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Knight, please, read again Nableezy’s comment. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment' I don't understand why this topic is obviously unsuitable, compared to some of the other topics that get posted. Neither oppose vote has clearly articulated a reason. This story is international news on some level, at least. (No comment on article quality.) Zagal e jo (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because despite Hawkeye7's comment, what level is that? For example, to get to this story at the Sydney Morning Herald requires me to go from the front page -> Politics (?) -> Federal. And from there it is the 8th highest story. Behind 4 cartoons stories. It simply is not something that has attracted much attention. And thats even in Australia, for whom it is their worst maritime disaster. A text search for ship on the CNN homepage takes me to this story and this story. The news was when it sunk. This is trivia now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that's more helpful. Zagal e jo (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't get this argument. This is one of the most simultaneously restrictive and loose blurb-criteria I've ever seen. By this logic, should ITN feature the marriage between Jonathan Owens and Simone Biles, or how the Whopper is Burger King's advantage over McDonalds since those are at the top of CNN's website? Or some Sydney mom buying her son a house since that's on the front page of the SMH? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 02:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, my view is that something being in the news means it is front page news at least somewhere. In the internet age everything is covered internationally. What matters to me is depth and prominence of that coverage. No, I would not cover those stories here either, but they are treated as bigger stories than this in each of those sources. I dont think ITN should feature minor things on the front page of Wikipedia that even news sources dont consider important enough to feature on the front pages of their websites. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That may be your view, but it is not the consensus position of ITN (broad international coverage is not explicitly required), and so I do not believe it is your position to hint that someone stop nominating stories just because they don't fit your view of notability. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about broad international coverage Sherlock. I do not believe it to be your position to be the police officer of ITN, a position you seem to have appointed yourself to. Yall can vote for this, i legit do not care, but you make a mockery of every other story you reject while doing so (eg this is ITN worthy but Ralph Yarl is not lulz). What you are showing is how personal bias runs this place, not any objective criteria. And you can do that, again I dont care, but I choose not to. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've appointed myself to nothing, other than pointing out your viewpoint doesn't reflect the current consensus and pointing out you're unfairly pillorying a good-faith nom. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But you did that by misreading my position. I dont expect worldwide coverage. I expect it to be front page news somewhere. See here for my general thoughts on what ITNCRIT calls the highly subjective significance criteria. My subjective criteria is is the story front page news at least somewhere. And here it is not. Most days I read pretty deep in to the NYT, and I dont even live in NY, but even sometimes going in to the local coverage sections. But I would only suggest things here that grace their front page, because if it isnt significant enough to be on the front page of whatever news sources Im bringing here then it isnt significant enough to be on the in the news on the front page of Wikipedia. In my opinion obviously. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is why the news requirement is that the topic be in the news - not where it is on a news' overall coverage that day, nor how many news sites cover it. Perhaps the only thing is to make sure that there's sufficient topic independence in the news site - eg if this was only being reported by Japanese or Australian sources, that might be too close, but with CNN and The Telegraph covering it, that is not a problem here. M asem  (t) 03:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems to have less to do with the suitability of the topic and more to do with the perceived track record of who nominated it&mdash;an editor who has recently taken an interest in ITN, has made several submissions over the past month or so (many of which were unsuccessful for one reason or another), and is making a clear effort to learn from his mistakes while still being willing to take risks. That should be applauded, not chastised. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I assure you that I applaud the enthusiasm. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment due to the lack of unclear nature of the true number of those on board, I would state that instead of "killing over one thousand Australian POWs", it would be better to say "believed to have been carrying over one thousand Australian POWs" before the line about being sunk. That number is still why this wreck and discovery are key, but it does seem the exact numbers have been lost to time. --M asem (t) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also you don't need to spam the source list; that can bog down this page if every ITNC has that many. You just need two or three sources, but you can use all those other sources in the article itself. M asem (t) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The sources demonstrate widespread international coverage and the update seems adequate. As this is lasting and sustained coverage of a controversial and substantial loss of life, this is quite encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The discovery is unique, the closing of an event of close to eighty years. Covered internationally as shown by the nominator. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The discovery of such a ship is quite important, and this is the end of an over 80-years old mystery. we're 82 years behind on posting this news, but I still think it belongs on ITN just based on merit. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per Nableezy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I am sure that if the wreck of Amelia Earhart's plane were found in the Pacific, some people here would still object to an ITN posting on the grounds that the plane actually crashed in 1937, over 85 years ago. To the rest of the world it should be obvious that the event being nominated is the finding of the wreck. The same applies to finding the wreck of Montevideo Maru. The find will go into the history books and will impact several countries, including Japan, Australia, and the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk92. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While I'm usually across the aisle (as it were) from many others voicing support here, I think there is merit in posting. It's an interesting historical event getting a sizable amount of international news coverage (and it's not as if there's just one AP article getting spread around, i.e. the NY Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera all have unique articles). I don't love the blurb ideas and would just say "sunk by the US" instead of mentioning a possible death toll. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe In the Pacific, the wreckage of the Japanese SS Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), sunk during World War II while carrying over 1000 Australian civilians and POWs, is discovered.? BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An interesting historical event belongs at DYK, not ITN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which does not apply here, as the discovery of the wreckage is a current event. Kurtis (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a current event, but not significant news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;And I'll actually propose a new alternate blurb for consideration: The wreckage of the SS Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), a Japanese vessel sunk by the US during World War II with over 1000 captive Australian nationals onboard, is discovered in the South China Sea. Kurtis (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Numbers It's puzzling that the blurbs and the comments above keep talking about the number of Australians being over 1000 when the sources seem to consistently say that it was just less than a thousand, with the rest being from numerous other countries. If the exact numbers are debatable or disputed then we should avoid being specific in the blurb and leave the detail to the article.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support despite some of the opposition verging on personal attack, yes, this is actually notable based on the amount of news coverage. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think this discovery is significant, considering the degree of loss of allied civilian life in an allied attack. Still not happy with any of the blurb options, but I won't let that be a roadblock. Curbon7 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Titanic this is not. A footnote of WWII history except, I assume, to Australians. The article is not in great shape, it rambles on about supposed errors and contradictions in its sources, and it does not tell us, e.g., how the survivors of the sinking were rescued and what reaction, if any, the US Navy had to one of its subs killing 1,000 allied personnel.  Sandstein   19:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sinking of Montevideo Maru was the worst-ever maritime disaster in Australia's history. That's way more than a historical footnote. Nsk92 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence the 'except to Australians' part. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was important news in 1942. Less so now.  Sandstein   22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, we’re not supposed to oppose an item b/c it may only be of interest to a single country. Also, as a non-Australian who has a history degree, this is interesting to me. I’m guessing it’d interest many others who are interested in history. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose more or less per Nableezy but without the snark. Interesting that the ship was found, but what exactly is the impact of this event? Perhaps the sinking was notable at the time, but what does the finding actually mean other than that we know where the ship us now? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination is about the discovery of the wreck, not the sinking. It was not news in 1942, because although USS Sturgeon (SS-187) reported sinking a ship at that location, none of the prisoners were rescued and the extent of the disaster was not revealed until after the war. It was not the last time that US submarines sank ships containing large numbers of Allied prisoners of war. On 7 September 1944 the USS Paddle sank the SS Shinyō Maru with 750 Allied prisoners of war on board. Then, on 11-12 September, a wolf pack attacked a convoy and sank the SS Rakuyō Maru with 1,159 Allied prisoners on board, and the SS Kachidoki Maru with 950 Allied prisoners on board. On 23-26 October two wolf packs attacked a convoy and sank ten ships, one carrying 1,800 American prisoners of war. Thus, US submarines killed over 4,000 Allied prisoners of war in just six weeks. Looking at the opposes above, I don't think this is widely known, and in my view provides a compelling reason for running this item. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk92. Any blub aside from altblurb II is ok - since the fact that it was sunk by a US submarine is significant enough to be necessary in the blurb. Flyingfishee (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bit too niche for ITN. If it was a new article it would have been a good fit for DYK. As Sandstein mentioned, the article quality isn't that great, and it has only a minimal update. Sometimes a great article can make up for a relative lack of news coverage - this is not one of those times. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For those unfamiliar with DYK: If the article was new it would be eligible for DYK. But it still has two possible paths. The article could be expanded fivefold. It is currently 6,490 bytes (1,065 words) "readable prose size", so this would involve expanding it to 32,450 byes (~5,000 words). Or it could be fixed up and nominated for GA, which would also make it eligible. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Nsk92. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As a reference point: the discovery of the wreck of the Endurance was posted to ITN in March 2022. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is historically significant, it’s been in the news & posting the discovery of the Endurance set a precedent that the discovery of a shipwreck can be posted to ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - historic finding. Article looks ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Resolution of an extremely serious and prominent historic case. The blurb should definitely be one which references the role of US forces in the sinking. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt3. Interesting historical story, though the wreck discovery is not the most significant event. The article update is short but does meet our minimum requirements, and the referencing is fine. Not great, but good enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk and Blaylockjam. Notable discovery relative to multiple countries, and it helps in being something unusual to ITNR. The Kip (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Will add pic when it clears cross-wiki projection. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad to see this story featuring on the main page&mdash;and I would just like to add, I have a particular fondness for the blurb you selected. Dare I inquire as to the identity of the cunning linguist who wrote it? (*Gently strokes chin stubble with an air of self-satisfaction.*) Kurtis (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that was a "blink and you missed it" posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Been re-added, thankfully. The Kip (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we'll never see that image, lol. DecafPotato (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rambahadur Limbu

 * Support Seems perfectly adequate for the main page. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited and long enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ready बडा काजी (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't seem to have any problems PN27 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, marked it as ready. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Noor Jehan (elephant)

 * Oppose According to the article, "As of the latest reports, Noor Jehan is still alive and responding to treatment...". The article is also orange-tagged and a merger has been proposed. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the source of the reports you mentioned? Ainty Painty (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The quote is from our article. The point is that it is presumably incorrect now. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until both orange tag is removed and discussion to merge ends. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm unconvinced that this elephant is actually notable; or, at least, was not until the manner of their death, which (ironically) would be a BLP1E issue. I think the suggestion to merge the article with the one on the zoo is a good one. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Humphries

 * Oppose There is a massive amount of unsourced text. Steelkamp (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looking a lot better now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: 12 "citation needed" tags have now been added. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Found 3 already. 9 left. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But Bibliography, Filmography and Discography nearly entirely unsourced. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the remaining 9 CN tags can be sourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No CN tags are remaining now. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have now referenced all the 9CN tags along with some other unsourced statements. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would love to see this on the main page but seeing too many paras with no inline citations and since no footnote refs are present they are likely uncited. This needs to be fixed before we can go ahead (one or two cn tags are there but not enough to impede a posting if the dangling paras are fixed with inline cites). Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We won't know if the paras are uncited until someone checks and adds CN tags if needed? All but three of the Filmography items have articles - do they all need citations as well? Do all the Bibliography items just need ISBNs? 86.187.166.213 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the article contains no WP:FOOTNOTES (non-WP:inline citations) and thus needs inline references for every para that remains uncited which are quite a few regardless of whether cn tags have been added to them, the few cn tags that also exist will need to be fixed as well. The bibliography without ISBNs is not an issue (but would be preferable). Gotitbro (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why does it need FOOTNOTES as well as citations? There are currently no CN tags, but just one "page number needed" tag. 86.187.166.213 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not "as well as" but either of them, but as has helped in fixing the issues so not a problem any further. Striking my vote to Support. Gotitbro (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just removed that "page number needed" tag as unnecessary. 86.187.166.213 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many previously uncited paragraphs have references now. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. That is very good. But there are still nine CN tags. 86.187.161.36 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve fixed the cn tags. Think it’s ready now. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even when you made that reply there were no CN tags left. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seven tags were added immediately before that reply was made. They were all subsequently fixed by yorkshiresky. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry my mistake. Thanks to @Yorkshiresky for fixing them. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Congrats to all who pitched in, it looks like it is well-referenced now and in really good shape for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A comedy icon of British television for decades. A true comic genius. Article is in very good shape now. And it's been two days now. 86.170.226.56 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have my support Tommie345 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's holding this up? 86.170.226.56 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment some awards and honors do not have their respective source, there are some contents in the subsections "One-man shows" that need sources. Overall, the article is good, but not good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed with Alsor, it's better, but it's not there yet. The commonly-held standard is we need to source awards and honors in its entirety, or remove those statements which cannot be corroborated by secondary sources. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's now been marked as (Ready) for nearly a day?? And it's three days since he died. 86.187.171.169 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure all _-_Alsor concerns have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Post this ASAP. --38.106.246.204 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Ready) since 20:07, 24 April 2023. Now four days since he died. What more is needed?? 86.187.233.49 (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Important note: Someone needs to revert the incompetent IP who has been edit warring despite several TP notices, and then an admin needs to edit-protect the article so this sort of junk doesn't get added while the article may be at ITN. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some (sourced) tributes would not go amiss? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one? Ollieisanerd  (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now submitted a request for this article to be protected at Requests for page protection. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The page is now semi-protected for a period of three weeks. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Will it even get posted on that time? 86.187.167.234 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support nice article. Post already.  SN54129  17:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I see no reason to hold off posting this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Let's go. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WTF. 86.187.175.83 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been five days since he died. The article is fine. It's been marked Ready  for days. Still not posted. Shameful. 81.154.245.183 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it is, it's just that the admins seem to be more focused on other things, and are completely forgetting about this. We now have two days until the cut-off point for posting, and it would be a shame that all the hard effort put into getting this page ready would go to waste. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas this is a very common story at ITN noms. No wonder people don't bother. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We need to post this quickly. T. E. A. Mackie (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Remember this is a volunteer project. We only have a couple of admins who are regularly posting things on ITN, and a lot of them are backlogged. Sometimes this happens, there's not much point in throwing a temper-tantrum over it. You can try pinging Tone if you want to have better luck. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine then, @Tone. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello :) Posting. Tone 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Ollieisanerd  (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tone, good to know our efforts weren’t in vain. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's not "a temper tantrum", is it. It's just folks doing work to shape up an article and seeing it sit here for days at a time, when there is seemingly nothing they can do to progress it. And nominations often seem to get gazumped by more notable ones. It happens time and time again. Folks will eventually just give up and not bother improving stuff. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with you. But there's basically no appetite within the community for unbundling admin tools to allow non-admins to post to the Main Page. I'm unhappy about it too. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you'll get your reward in heaven. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there should probably be a new user group called "In the News Patroller", given to users that mainly contribute to ITN, so that non-admins can post to Template:In the News, as it is clear now that many admins simply don't have the time to regularly update ITN that often, and this user group would allow for much quicker posting times. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good idea, Ollieisanerd. Humphries' death got a whole 7 hours 54 minutes on the Main page.... 86.187.232.202 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, discussion moved) Ongoing: 2023 Asia heat wave

 * Support Target article seems well-sourced and contains enough prose that I'd rate it at least start class. The sources mention that the heat wave is breaking records in multiple countries and that the heat is so excessive that it caused road surfaces to melt in Dhaka, which sounds extreme enough to be notable. Story is still developing. The article doesn't mention high numbers of reported casualties, but this is an ongoing nom, not a standalone blurb nom. <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> 💙 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose In a scenario of global warming, heat waves are common. In the event that this particular one causes a notorious number of casualties, we may decide to include it as an ITN. But not in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * oppose - blurb maybe if/when it merits it, but as far as I recall past weather events were blurbed when it merited it, not put in ongoing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Articles needs significant improvement to justify this as a single and notable event. That high temperatures were broken across multiple countries doesn't necessarily equate to a solitary event driving it. --M asem (t) 18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, weak support ongoing - its happening, its receiving WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. The article does need some expansion though. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't usually post about heat waves, and, as much as I hate to be the one to say it, Heat waves are becoming more and more common due to global warming, so, if we post this one, we're gonna potentially post about stuff such as "North American Heat wave" "African Heat wave" and "European Heat wave", and by summertime, Ongoing is going to have like 4 heat wave-related articles. If this cause any major destruction to infrastructure, or harm many people, then I can see where this nomination is coming from. but so far, none of that has occured. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We most certainly do post about heat waves if they're severe enough: North America 2021, Pakistan 2015, just to name a couple. Kurtis (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If this gets severe enough Id support it, just dont think it is there yet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for Ongoing, Weak support for blurb. I think Knightsoftheswords218 captures my feelings pretty well, though I think this feels like it needs to be a blurb first.  If it is still happening when it rolls off of the blurbs, we can consider moving it to ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emily Meggett

 * Comment I've added two cn tags. Once this is fixed, I'll change my vote to Support. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , fixed. The two statements were in the New York Times source already in the article, but the citation hadn't been added to those sentences. Curbon7 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now. Vacant0 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergio Rendine

 * I put him on my to-do-list on Saturday, planned today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * please check, - it's much shorter because I left only for what I could find a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article looks good, excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enver Baig

 * Not yet ready Prose is not yet updated with his death. Prose could also use some expansion, particularly with regards to his Senate tenure, as the article currently read like a resume of positions he's held. Curbon7 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the death update to the prose, as well as fixed up some ref issues alongside. Article should not be that bad, but the prose could use expansion, therefore I give it a weak support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It's short but it's a start article. It could be expanded if there is more available info about the individual. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jeremy Nobis

 * Oppose article is a stub. Needs expansion in able to be put on the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The death is being investigated and so is a work-in-progress. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Comment There just haven't been many developments in the past couple months. We're only one month into the spring season, I assume actions will increase in the next month or two. If they don't, removal should be considered. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until Russia leaves Ukrainian soil, I shall vehemently oppose removal. MyriadSims (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Obviously still a major event which continues to get frequent news coverage, even if there isn't as much fighting right now, which will likely change soon. Just looking at the BBC website right now, 3 of the top stories are related to Ukraine/Russia. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I feel like this won't go through even though in terms of contribution size, this article has had far less than the Israeli protests, where consensus seems to be heading towards removing it from ongoing. But in any case, oppose, still receiving substantial updates and is still ITN. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think I will have to say this on a Wikipedia page, but the war is not over, the article is still being updated, and, when I search up "Recent news" on Yandex, it brings up the war on at least 6 times out of 10, and this is an important event that is still ongoing. there is still battles surrounding the Kherson and Donetsk areas, and there are still constant Airstrikes in areas such as Kyiv, Lyiv, Kherson, and Luhansk. and I can't go a day without seeing at least one report about it on the news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I just went on Google, first headline to pop up: "The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said he is “confident” that Ukraine is prepared to retake more territory as Kyiv readies for a new offensive against invading Russian forces", "Jack Teixeira, the US air national guardsman accused of leaking classified defence documents to a small group of gamers, posted sensitive information months earlier than previously known and to a much larger chat group", "A Moscow court has ordered the arrest in absentia of Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev, adding him to its list of “foreign agents”, state-owned news agency RIA has reported" you get the point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/22/russia-ukraine-war-at-a-glance-what-we-know-on-day-423-of-the-invasion Editor 5426387 (Talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still going on, still being updated. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's just a temporal slowdown. Spring in Eastern Europe means rasputitsa, and every unit, from foot soldier to modern MBT, gets a huge debuff to mobility. When mud will dry, fighting is very likely to increase. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 04:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022–present) is being updated. Perhaps its necessary to add this link hidden under the phrase "(Timeline)" so that editors considering a drawn-out ongoing removal know to check the article likely to be updated. --M asem (t) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seriously? 73.170.116.64 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose really??? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Israel Judicial Reform unrest

 * Weak oppose - still receiving daily updates, including major entries every couple of days, as evidenced in the history. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support That history shows only a single substantive edit since April 15, which was also when the last major event occurred.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still in the news. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Knightsoftheswords. Updates are still coming in several times a week, meets the requirements for an ongoing article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the most recent protest action was just yesterday at the world Zionist congress. It might be worth visiting this in a week or so but for now it's definitely still ongoing. Flyingfishee (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support → Oppose for now There were no major protests since April 15. The most recent events are not significant by any means There is a major rally today ahead of Memorial Day and Independance Day.^^Maxxies (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Maxxies and GreatCaesarsGhost. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - In brief, it's no longer In the news. Jusdafax (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Nowhere near as major an event as it was several weeks ago. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It’s still getting significant updates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Updates may not be as substantial as previously, but they seem substantial enough to keep the Ongoing item up. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There was a claim for removal at nomination, but there was a big update the very next day, showing this is still ongoing for the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2023 French pension reform unrest

 * Support removal Per nom, lacks regular updates. Additionally, will the Sudan article possibly rolling onto Ongoing, will need the space available for this.  Spencer T• C 05:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal – Article is not ongoingly being updated. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal as per the above. Compusolus (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal - At this time the protests have slowed down.BabbaQ (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Tone 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Riordan

 * Support I've added missing citations. The article looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We need to be quick in posting this. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because we're running out of time. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenji Yonekura

 * Oppose needs some sourcing work in order for this to be Main Page ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article looks good now. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be referenced now, ! Tails   Wx  18:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-sourced and holistic. Minor quibble is that his date of birth isn't mentioned in the prose, but this can be easily fixed. Curbon7 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Salma Khadra Jayyusi

 * Weak support, but one of the awards needs to be cited and sourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fakescientist, it should be sourced now! Tails   Wx  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, well-sourced, though it could use some expansion! Tails   Wx  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It may be well sourced, but the content needs to be expanded. It's too short for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Buzzfeed News shuts down

 * Oppose - on significance. Like Gawker before it, minor detail in the US media landscape. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard business news. If it were the NYTimes or WaPpst, maybe there would be something with actual significance. --M asem (t) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Web site closes. CoatCheck (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and...? We don't doubt your good faith, but not every news item you read is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Routine and insignificant event, affecting a small news organization compared to the Reuters, NYTs, and BBCs of the world. It seems like this is SNOW close worthy as well. DecafPotato (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose some news website shuts down temporarily, this is not really a big deal. I would assume something like this would occur every month or so, it just happens to be on a news website. oh, and when I went to visit their website, it is still up and running. so it must be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not temporary, it's PERMANENT as in BuzzFeed News is about to have its head chopped by the guillotine due to funding issues. Although, that doesn't change the notability of this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Companies die all the time. Unless it is a major brand or major news outlet like NYT then I see no reason for it to be posted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Solar eclipse 2023

 * Support - passes WP:N. I'm American, and I still heard a lot of huff puff about this online. Also, it was pretty big in Oceania, where it was visible, with it becoming a big moment for astrotourism and costing governments tens of millions of dollars (Australian). Additionally, it was a hyrbid solar eclipse, which are exceptionally rare, only accounting for 3% of eclipses in the 21st century. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - think full eclipses should be ITN/R. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They already are. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Total and hybrid eclipses are on WP:ITNR, so this can be posted as soon as the article is up to standard. I've added the ITNR flag above. However, the article has almost no prose description of the event. It's almost entirely tables, lists of related eclipses, and an excessive gallery. There need to be multiple paragraphs of fully-referenced prose describing what happened during the event, estimates of how many people viewed it etc. Tables are not enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article is currently a stub and needs additional sourcing. It's borderline though, so I expect it could be viable with a few changes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality - Article is a stub with. Also, I can't tell but are the three "series" sections unsourced? Because they look like it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think editors en-wiki do it, Although, I not sure it in this.--СтасС (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing, the entire "related eclipses" section looks completely unnecessary and looks like it could just be deleted outright. may be wrong though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose first off, it's a stub, second off, some hybrid Solar Eclipse is not ITN-worthy, and third, need more sourcing.Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Solar eclipses are WP:ITN/R, meaning that at least procedurally, there are ITN-worthy (whatever that means at this point), in fact, arguably one of the most ITN-worthy things. However, hey, I'm at least glad your not saying per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 04:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rock moves in front of another rock, not encyclopedic content. Needs to be expanded beyond a stub. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This eclipse belongs to the Solar Saros 129 series, it is the last hybrid one of this series. The next eclipse in this series will be the first total eclipse lf this series: Solar eclipse of April 30, 2041. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose consists of a short lead section and a gallery of pictures and tables. Needs much more prose to be considered for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more prose, undersourced. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - At a first glance, I was going to oppose, but I skimmed Template:Solar eclipses to find the most recently posted total/hybrid eclipse posted to ITN to get an idea of when it'd be ready. The most recent one seems to have been in 2019. In terms of prose, there seems to be just as much here as there was in the Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 article, which was posted to ITN. There might actually be more, considering that the 2023 article is 10K bytes compared to the 2019 article's 9K. When I was going to prematurely oppose, I had typed out "the main issue holding me back from supporting is the fact that the Inex series, Tritos series, and Metonic series subsections don't have any references", but then I realized that this is normal and it's exactly how it is in the 2019 article which we posted. And as for the raw number of sources, the 2023 article has 7 compared to the 2019 article's 5. So just based off of precedent, this is already greater than or equal to what we've previously deemed worthy of ITN for an eclipse article. Of course, that's not to say we can't demand more from these articles, as the second most recent one posted - the Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 - has an excellent B-class article with over 100K bytes. But I also have to consider that the 2017 one benefited greatly from systemic bias as it was dubbed "The Great American Eclipse" and thus it was widely reported on by a large variety of English-language RS, while the 2019 and 2023 ones were both over the Asia-Pacific region. All of that is to say that I can't fairly think of a reason to oppose this. TL;DR: ITN/R and slightly better than the last total/hybrid eclipse we posted. <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> 💙 05:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Black Kite, @Jayron32, @WaltCip @Editor 5426387, @Onegreatjoke, @Thebiguglyalien, and @Modest Genius in regards to @Vanilla Wizard's statement. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still an Oppose - Regardless of what they said. There is barely any prose at all. There is ZERO prose detailing the actual eclipse in the article. The eclipse for July 2 actually had some sentences detailing the eclipse in its body. This does not. The only prose is in the related eclipses section, which is practically UNSOURCED. So, my opinion has not changed. unless fixes are done I will continue to oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this changes anything. I opposed the 2019 eclipse on the same grounds - lack of prose content. Just because we posted one low-quality article almost 4 years ago doesn't mean we should let another one through now. The simplest way to get this article posted would be to add a couple of paragraphs of referenced prose content, and remove the unreferenced material. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but "We screwed this up in 2019, so can we screw it up again this year?" is not a rationale that wins my support. We still need more prose about the event.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By way, don't my topic (Don't my article).--СтасС (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality, partially per Onegreatjoke: article needs a lot of prose expansion and source work in order for this to be ready for the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. As is the case with many of these eclipse articles, prose is lacking, and a good portion of the article is copy-and-paste material about related eclipses. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Harold Riley

 * Oppose. Per nom, needs additional refs. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Lots of citing needs to happen before this can go onto the main page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Starship maiden launch

 * Mars journey-sized support. Just watched it with my daughters. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, good way of putting it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I'm really put off by the fact that I have to consider ITN-worthy as (yet another) millionaire's whim. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POV. This is way more than just a millionaire's whim, this is a hugely significant event in the history of spaceflight! All over the news, has broken many records. Would we have posted Apollo 4? (Since this was basically on the same scale, if not more significant.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good question. I have the suspicion that if ITN were around back then, that only Apollo 8, 11, and 13 (and yes, probably 4) would have been posted due to their overwhelming significance as compared to other launches in the series (despite them all being landmark events in their own right). But we'll never know the answer to that interesting hypothetical. I still contend, of course, the Watergate burglary would never have made ITN back then. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an important discussion to have as humanity returns to the Moon in the next few years. Personally, I believe all the Apollo missions would've been notable for posting. In regards to the Artemis program, I think we should definitely post the first missions back, until a point where they come routine enough. The event is hugely notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait dangit – Actual article is not yet ready. Needs a bunch of work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On it as we speak PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed. I will be making lunch for the family. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Article looking alright now, acceptable for main page, and for the record, the maiden flight test was a success. 30km is fine. I hope someone can write a better blurb.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Holding judgment until the article is ready to roll. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC
 * Neutral - This is a tough call, given that this was a maiden flight and the mission accomplished all of its major objectives of clearing the tower and surviving max-Q (the highest points of dynamic pressure on the spacecraft), but the rocket never staged and the RSO had to detonate it before it could reach orbit. So it never actually crossed the Karman Line. If that's considered our threshold for any space flight, then we necessarily have to oppose. On the other hand, it certainly made the news, and it somewhat opens the way to the Moon and Mars. So it's a tough call. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that this is the largest rocket ever launched (twice as powerful as the Saturn V) is notable enough PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, and I'm definitely sympathetic to that first. It's a huge "first", and I'm tempted to support on that basis alone. But the Karman Line is a mighty border, and I think you will find a lot of people will consider that to be the barometer of significance even if that wasn't the main objective. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How about this: The Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and never reached its destination. Do we consider it notable? They built it, tested it, they made their milestones and then some. It's an achievement nonetheless. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I chuckle at that comparison simply because the Titanic was manned/crewed, unlike Starship, and the sinking was considered international news on the basis of it being a catastrophe with very few peers. But otherwise, it's a valid comparison and I see your point. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually expected some chuckling at the comparison, and it was a great loss of life. Granted, no movie will be made of this launch, but still. And support blurb 3 --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Never say never, we could see an action movie about this launch starring Tom Cruise hanging on to the side :P PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With or without a harness in frame? Cheers. Wime  Pocy  16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * +1! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Launch was bigger (number of engines and thrust) than the four failed N1 (rocket). Pretty sure failed MAIDEN launches have been posted on ITN. Although it was not on the ground, very likely it will make the Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions once somebody does the calcualtion of the remaining amount of fuel when it detonated.194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The most recent maiden launch that got discussed was Terran 1 last month, and that wound up being not posted on grounds that it didn't make it to orbit and complete a 100% nominal mission.
 * Likewise, the size of the rocket isn't what makes it noteworthy, it's that it was intended for spaceflight. And it did not reach space any more than SN8 through SN15. Nottheking (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, some significant parts of the text on both the April 17 attempt, and the April 20 successful launch, lack sources. We need to fix that.  Once those two issues are fixed, I would support posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added NYT ref should take care of the tags. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Alt III, which covers the situation nicely. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just wonder if we should classify it as a success. SpaceX is calling it one due to the large amount of valuable data gathered, despite the explosion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are those who say that no experiment is actually a failure, because You can always learn something. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very true PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course SpaceX is calling it a success. We shouldn't put that in Wiki voice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we'd need to find other reliable sources when it comes to rocketry branding this as a "failure" then. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally every single news outlets says that this launch is a failure. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every, most in the space industry do not PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we going to post every test of this thing? Don't see the notability at the moment, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is much more than just an average rocket test. This is:
 * -The first flight of the Super Heavy booster, as well as the most amount of engines successfully ignited in a flight I believe
 * -The most powerful rocket ever flown, twice the thrust of the Saturn V
 * -Made it to the upper atmosphere, whereas previous tests were only a few kilometers in altitude
 * -All over the news
 * Much, much more than a traditional test PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think point 4 is the only relevant one to this discussion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Though with point 4, it meets ITNR. The first flight was a huge success - the first phase did it's job - unfortunate that stage separation seems to have failed; but fixing that isn't rocket science. And of course the first phase failed to land ... thought so did SLS :). The second stage has been tested in flight numerous times - so nothing major there. Had they gone with the earlier plan of only flying the first stage, they would have been no issue. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who the heck removed rockets from ITNR - but left darts? That's absurd - there's far too little science there already, especially compared to sports events (assuming darts is indeed a sport and not a drinking game). Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this is definitely more notable and In The News than a darts tournament (though not to disrespect that sport). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Huge achievement and milestone, not all tests are equal. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Wait until it succeeds. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It did. Your comment is like arguing Apollo 4 didn't succeed because it didn't land on the Moon. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not comparable whatsoever: Apollo 4 was never planned to land on the Moon; its plan was to make orbit and perform an S-IVB restart. It completed all of its objectives.
 * By comparison, this launch did not achieve its objectives. The first-stage burn was anomalous (with at least 6 engines visibly failing) with a proper MECO (main engine cut-off) never being called out. The ship then tumbled before its internal systems ordered a self destruct.
 * Had it been a successful mission, we'd have seen proper MECO, then a full second-stage burn. The upper stage would have crossed the Kármán Line and reached space, making a suborbital partial-loop of earth before impacting in the Pacific Ocean.
 * This is not what happened, thus it was not a success on the order of Apollo 4. Nottheking (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great explanation, but I wasn't responding to your !vote. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an argument. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This was the plan, but none of them were metrics of success. In this instance, success was measured by the amound of data collected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant IMO, and the article looks good with a quick skim (though maybe I'm just missing something). TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only thing needed in the article is a pic from the actual launch, same for the blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While no longer ITNR, this particular launch of the heaviest ever rocket and its subsequent explosion make a very good case for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - all over the news, and a significant milestone in man's journey to the Solar System. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Further comment - the blurbs only link the actual rocket however, and not the article about the actual launch. Considering how symbiotic the two are, I'd suggest bold linking both articles in the blurb. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Unsuccessful test that didn't reach space, let alone orbit. I'll be happy for us to post a blurb if/when this rocket successfully reaches orbit. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it was successful? The principal objective was to test the new rocket and get it off the ground, which it did. Sure, it exploded, but it had already accomplished the former. Like @PrecariousWorlds stated, explosion =/= failure. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only because SpaceX set very limited criteria, deliberately designed to cover themselves in case the mission wasn't completed. They want to claim some good PR whatever happened. The launch was intended to reach space on a suborbital trajectory and re-enter near Hawaii. That wasn't achieved. The rocket got off the ground, yes, but exploded shortly thereafter. Even if this flight had achieved its full goals, it still wouldn't have entered orbit, so I'm not convinced it would be suitable for ITN. Not even managing stage separation is a major failure for a rocket. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you understand the history of SpaceX, you'll know that they take an incredibly iterative testing process, unlike others in the space industry who prefer to get things right on the first go (usually because they are dependent on public funding, rather than SpaceX which has a large pool of private funds). Just look at the early Falcon 9 launches, nearly all of them would be deemed by most as a "failure", yet the immense amount of data gathered from it allowed the Falcon 9 to become the most successful rocket program...ever, now launching twice a week, with no "failures" in over 100 launches. They weren't trying to cover themselves for PR in this launch by saying a RUD was likely, rather making an accurate assessment that this is completely uncharted territory, and following their previous design policy. To say this is a failure implies that it's some devastating loss to SpaceX, when in reality they were completely planning for this outcome. It just isn't accurate. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the history. I'm also aware that SpaceX has vast legions of fans, who cheer everything they do regardless of how impressive it actually is, and very slick PR to generate positive news coverage. IMO the correct time for ITN to post this rocket is when it successfully reaches orbit, not before. We can't have a blurb for every incremental step towards that goal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I'll bring up previous points:
 * This is literally In The News, with significant coverage from just about everywhere, and marks the most powerful rocket launch in history, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V. It is the first flight of Super Heavy, and the integrated stack of Starship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And it blew up before stage separation. It was a test flight that failed to reach its objectives, didn't get to space, and didn't enter orbit. We have fundamentally different views of whether that is sufficient to justify a blurb in ITN - which is OK - and simply restating them isn't going to change either opinion. Let the discussion play out and see how everyone else !votes. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, this discussion isn't getting to anywhere. I can see your point, but I do believe this is notable enough for posting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way SpaceX laid it out, nearly any outcome would be classified as a success. But they had a planned mission for it (perform a stage separation, reach space, make a suborbital flight that impacted into the Pacific Ocean) that was not completed. Spinning everything into a positive doesn't actually change the definition of spaceflight. Do remember as well: SpaceX calling it a success is a primary source, not secondary. And the news articles aren't specifically calling it a "success," they're talking about how it exploded.
 * I'd also mention that we had a clearer example a last month with the Terran 1 launch: it actually did pass the Kármán Line, and its launchers said that "anything past Max Q made it a huge success," that didn't stop it from being considered a failed launch. And ultimately kept it from being posted to ITN as well. Nottheking (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The rocket failed, full stop. Even SpaceX acknowledged this. What makes this ITN worthy is that its the largest rocket to fly in 50+ years and the largest rocket to go kaboom in 50+ years. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tweet never said a failure, only that Starship had an RUD, which as stated above was expected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just stop denying the facts. If you are into Starship, you would know that "rapid unscheduled disassembly" = rocket go kaboom = failed launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If we define a launch to a vessel taking off from its original location, then strictly speaking the launch was a success (as the commentators during the live cast said). I had to have my spherical cow moment. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. RUD that was expected to happen is not the same as a complete failure. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of outlets are labeling it as a success. On Wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary ones for us. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to see these secondary sources; though keep in mind that the talk headers for numerous relevant pages do warn that a lot of ostensibly second sources (such as space.com or Teslerati) are not considered neutral enough for use in sourcing.
 * So far what I've seen is that they've been qualifying it, noting that it lifted off, but all noting that it exploded and/or failed to achieve its objectives. That sounds less like "calling it a success" and more "labeling it at least a partial failure." Nottheking (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial failure maybe, we could keep arguing semantics all day about this really, but my point is that simply labeling it a failure is misleading. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reliable source coverage is stating the following regarding this launch in headlines:
 * New York Times: "The most powerful rocket ever built got off the launchpad in South Texas but did not achieve its most ambitious goals on Thursday."
 * The Verge: "SpaceX’s integrated Starship spacecraft successfully took off from its launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas, on Thursday but didn’t manage to fully complete its test flight."
 * CNN: "SpaceX’s Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, took off from a launch pad on the coast of South Texas on Thursday at 9:28 a.m. ET, but exploded midair before stage separation."
 * CBS: "SpaceX launched its 500-foot-tall Starship, by far the world's most powerful rocket, on an uncrewed test flight Thursday morning, but a few minutes after clearing the launch pad it failed in a midair explosion."
 * So it seems not even the media can really decide whether it was technically a success or a failure. This is going to make the conversation here difficult. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a lot of people just see an explosion and assume "Wow, what a failure!", when in reality they were not even expecting Starship to make it that far, and the valuable data they got out of the launch made it well worth the loss. In this case, I think we should go with what industry experts think rather than sensationalist headlines. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is confirmed to have failed according to most reputable news sources. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't yet a consensus, and a majority of sources actually within the space industry are not deeming it a failure ( and more) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the BBC says that it isn't considered a failure PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly I don't think we should take Twitter posts as valid evidence of the success, and secondly even if this launch did succeed it's dubious whether we should post it. The "largest spacecraft" is a record that will certainly be beaten in the next few years so there's no reason for us to jump the gun and post it now, especially when one can (and should) argue that this wasn't even a successful launch in the first place. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That twitter post was by an incredibly credible and reliable industry expert who has been covering space for years and writes for Ars Technica, and while I agree we shouldn't use Twitter posts as reliable sources for posting, it's just one example of many that this launch has not been deemed a failure.
 * As for the last point, please tell me what spacecraft is launching in the near future that will surpass the power and capacity of Starship. No one in the industry is attempting something of this scale, and even if they were as you say, it is still years away. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The main objective of this test was to clear the launch tower. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put this rudely but frankly most people will view it as failure, and rightly so, if it didn't make it into space. It didn't make it into space and therefore the common opinion is that the launch was a failure. To argue otherwise is like saying chatGPT will cause singularity because it's the closest we've gotten so far. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That has no relation to what I'm arguing for here. A majority of reliable sources within the space industry say the opposite, it doesn't really matter what people who don't know the actual objectives of the launch think it is. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is just sugarcoating. Of course all companies/orgs will learn from their failures, and "gather the data" as SpaceX might said. But it's disingenuous to say that a rocket that do somersaults and then exploded a success. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * after considering the arguments of @PrecariousWorlds and @CactiStaccingCrane I think I am able to Support altblurb V or VI. While it was unsuccessful in the common view that doesn't make it non-notable, a failure of something notable can be notable. Therefore it is ITN worthy - we just have to specify that this rocket exploded mid-flight. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think that sounds like a good plan, with my own preference for altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb IV&mdash;The fact that it successfully cleared the tower is an important element of the story that should be mentioned on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose per Modest Genius' rationale. It did not make it to space.Found5dollar (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While there's a lot being said by its operators to say "well, the real success was the lessons we learned along the way," it remains that this did not achieve the definition of spaceflight: the stack achieved a maximum altitude of 39 km, well below the 100 km of the Kármán Line. And it did not even achieve its own planned objectives. A successful flight would've resulted in it entering space on a suborbital trajectory, with Starship impacting into the Pacific Ocean.
 * It's also worth noting that we seemed to decline posting the Terran 1 launch back in March, as that rocket failed to achieve orbit. (though it did reach space, achieving a maximum altitude of nearly 120 km if memory serves) The discussion mostly focused on the fact that it did not achieve its full mission or orbit, and ultimately it went un-posted. By contrast, this was a mission with a lower threshold (suborbital spaceflight, not orbit) and it failed to even achieve spaceflight.
 * In the grand scheme of things, this wasn't the "first" flight of this program, unless we qualify it rather heavily. It was the first liftoff of a booster designed to go to orbit, except that the mission (even if nominally completed) wasn't orbital. It was preceded by numerous prototypes before it, and (at the risk of trending into WP:CRYSTAL) will likely be succeeded by further flights. Out of all of them, is this one we can confidently say is of the most encyclopedic significance? I'm pretty confident on a "no" as the answer to that question: the most significant "first" for the program will either be its first flight into space or into orbit. While I'd be open to a debate on which one when the time comes, for now that distinction is purely academic. Nottheking (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to crystalball what is gonna happen next launch, SpaceX will try 5 more times until it reentries the atmosphere near Hawaii, and then ITN will decide the incremental rate of success is not worth posting at any of the 6 launch attempts, because incremental. It's a different success path to what ITN has seen in the field, so of course it's gonna stick to the oldschool thinking. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe we should have posted Terran 1, and this rocket was much more complex and powerful than Terran 1, so that automatically gives it more weight.
 * At the end of the day, this is a major milestone in spaceflight history, and is literally In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that we've seen, time and again, that simply being "in the news" is not sufficient, hence why ITN doesn't cover all the random celebrity drama that drowns much of it. It needs to both be in the news and have encyclopedic significance. (after all, SpaceX has conducted 12 highly successful launches of StarLink this year alone, and every one of them wound up in the news... And none of them were even nominated here)
 * And the complexity & power isn't something that we measure here; Wikipedia isn't in the business of making arbitrary numerical cutoff lines, (to borrow from another subject often appearing here, we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS) but deal in terms of encyclopedic subjects. In this case, it's spaceflight & orbital spaceflight, neither of which this met the conditions for.
 * It's also worth noting that we didn't even get a nomination for SN8 back in December 2020, which in many ways could be counted as the same category: SpaceX labeled it a success, while it was clear it didn't complete its objectives and exploded as a result.
 * So it's pretty clear that the milestone we're waiting for isn't here: at minimum, it'll need to reach space, not just 39 km up into the stratosphere. Had this succeeded, it'd have made that mark, but just because it was planned isn't sufficient alone. Nottheking (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me where in the ITN guidelines is encylopedic significance mentioned and more over what that even means. Are you stating that the event is unencyclopedic and that it should go to WP:AFD? Also, just because we didn't post SN8 doesn't mean that we can't post this story, per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially with how fluid consensus can be on ITN. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between saying "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either" (which wasn't my statement) but rather, "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either."
 * Atmospheric rocket-powered flights are fairly commonplace. Mentioning SN8, SN15, and others shows that these are comparatively common events, and not unusual. Had it actually made it to space at minimum, it'd be a different discussion; but for now, it's just another atmospheric test flight. It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't.
 * It's the same thing here: it might've been the first liftoff of Super Heavy (but not of Starship) but again, it didn't make it to space, much less orbit. Nottheking (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * " It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't." Flawed analogy, considering there wasn't a winner in this circumstance. And "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either." is just a more wordy rephrasing of "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because it is the biggest rocket to ever flown since the Saturn V and caused the biggest rocket explosion since the N1 (rocket), both are last flown over 50 years ago. Records were made, even if it doesn't reach orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what SpaceX or a random person define the launch either as a success or failure (it failed). But a rocket that broke many spaceflight records should be listed as ITNs. Even more so if it caused a failure as this would made appearance all over international news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I support blurb V and VI because it is short and sweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that also creates notability. This is one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Guess that Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions need an update... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have enough data to update it at the present moment. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It did not explode; it was destroyed by its own on-board self-destruct. The Superheavy Booster was already effectively depleted, leaving just the propellant load aboard Starship itself (~1200t vs. 3400t on Superheavy) to be scattered. Since we saw it as a big white cloud, that means it did not ignite; there was no combustion, and no explosion beyond the power of the pyrotechnics fired that ripped the vessel open. Had a detonation of the propellant actually occurred, we'd have seen a brilliant reddish-to-purplish fireball. (and again, even if it had detonated, most of its propellant had been consumed by that point: it'd have been a smaller explosion than destroyed N1 L5, as well as numerous other disasters like at Halifax or Beirut)
 * Likewise, size doesn't matter in terms of notability, it's what it actually does that matters. There weren't that many records made, and those it did required heavy qualification. As more engines failed (at least 6) it's possible it didn't even break its own prior record for greatest thrust generated. (from its own static fire last month) The only actual record I can think of was "greatest rocket thrust to lift off of the ground," a record it'd have taken from the N1 rocket. But that's not a very significant record or first.
 * Overall, it seems like it's trying to pre-emptively ride on the coattails of far more significant records & that SpaceX hopes to achieve down the line here, such as "first 100% reusable spacecraft to orbit," "first methane-burning rocket to orbit" and "first full-flow staged combustion rocket to space or orbit." It could have started chipping away at those had it succeeded at its flight plan, but alas, it did not. Nottheking (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair points. Suppose if the Sea Dragon launches today then you wouldn't call its failed flight ITN worthy, but you absolutely would if it goes to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. If it made it to orbit I'd consider that very ITN-worthy; the first orbital flight of any orbital-class vehicle should be ITN. A failed attempt less so... Unless the failure was unusual enough to merit consideration on other criteria. (i.e, a bad enough disaster that results in people dying would almost certainly be ITN, given that's a very unusual form of deadly disaster)
 * So far Starship prototypes have taken to the sky at least 10 times so far. I am patiently waiting for the one that finally makes it into orbit. (or at least space) The news isn't about that something exists, but rather what it does. Nottheking (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the news certainly is about something that exists, as this is all over the front page of just about every major outlet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The launch was at least partially successful. Plus it was a brand new type of rocket, the largest rocket ever, and it made it past the Max q stage. Nsk92 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support the launch that results in the first successful orbital flight. Too early for now. -- KTC (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Launch failures used to be ITNR- and the main goal here was to get it off the ground, which it did. If we aren't going to post this, then ITN needs to be wrapped up.  I'm not kidding.  This is a clear newsworthy even about a notable aspect of spaceflight. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly in the news. RAN1 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Not only the most powerfull, but also the first fully reusable rocket who can reach orbit --Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The evidence suggests otherwise (for now). The rocket failed to reach space never mind achieve orbit, and then exploded leaving nothing reusable. ;-) -- KTC (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to fall into the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii anyway.<span id="Nythar:1682026866507:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should have a header image for the launch, there's some pretty good images on spaceX's twitter 2605:B100:744:29F1:69E8:6488:78DF:D00E (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Not a stub and sourcing is sufficient. Opposes are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So... Pointing out that it did not reach space (or orbit) is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I'd be all for posting one that made it to orbit, (or even completed a successful suborbital mission, though many wouldn't agree with me on that!) but this accomplished neither; it broke up while still in the stratosphere. It didn't achieve spaceflight, and it seems highly unusual to post an atmospheric flight of which the likes have been routinely achieved. Nottheking (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not a policy-based argument, that's a personal preference. Such arguments are not given weight when a discussion is closed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And how is a support not personal opinion, then? Do recall that policy does not require merely "length and sourcing" to get an ITN blurb, but the significance of it needs to be established. And implicit in a "support" is a declaration that one considers it significant. So how is that not merely a WP:ILIKEIT, especially when no criteria is given for implying that significance? Nottheking (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do recall that policy does not require merely "length and sourcing" to get an ITN blurb, but the significance of it needs to be established. – There is no policy that says this, and in fact sitewide consensus leans toward this approach at ITN as being inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb VI.
 * I don't think that we should mention "the most powerful rocket ever built" when descring failure that resulted in failure.
 * Otherwise, support, main story. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose As others have said above, the mission may have been successful under SpaceX very low-bar milestones, but in no way represents a rocket ready to safely deliver cargo and people into space. It is step 1 of N.≤ let's wait for a test flight designed to get into earth's orbit and that success for posting.--M asem (t) 21:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It has been the largest, heaviest and most powerful rocket ever launched. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III The launch was an obviously notable event, regardless of the subsequent explosion; it was supposed to fall into the Pacific Ocean anyway, as a planned part of the test. It is quite possible that people in the future will view this launch as a moderately significant historical event in the history of spaceflight, even if we don't realize this now. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 21:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and get back to me when SpaceX does indeed open up commercial space tourism/flights to other planets. Maybe this project becomes something, maybe it doesn't. Right now, this is an incremental record flight that was set for testing purposes for a company. Success be damned, this rocket wasn't even going to do anything monumentally groundbreaking (well, I guess if you count the weight record then maybe, but once again, incremental record that will inevitably be broken). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Nythar, Alex Calamaro and othe similar supports above. The opposers fail to convince me. I prefer blurb 3 but any are acceptable. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet it meets ITNR. It's the first flight of a major new rocket. And it was a success - the issues seem to have been in the second stage separation. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who the heck removed rockets from ITNR? Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it was done with (this edit) Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:In the news that reached a consensus for removal, mainly due to the rapid expansion of commercial spaceflight. The Kip (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Successful launch of a new rocket. We wouldn't be having this debate if they'd gone with an earlier plan and launched this without stage 2, which failed to separate. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurbs all seem to discuss Starship while it's the launch of Super Heavy that is the achievement here. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it exploded even before completing its whole test flight path. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb V due to significance (and the record that it sets) and quality of article. The arguments against posting pertaining to Starship's failure to reach space are ignoring the intention of the flight -- to crash into the water anyways. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: It surpassed the N1 as the most powerful rocket to ever blow up. --Carnildo (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Much as I despise Elon and generally don't care about the endless parade of rockets going up right now, the notability and news coverage are both there, and the article is acceptable. I'm rather indifferent about which blurb to use, as long as it's NPOV. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. We need to decide this now before it falls off the news cycle. People above are roughly 2:1 in favor of posting, which is good enough for me in terms of consensus. Image to follow once protected at Commons.  Sandstein   09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandstein PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. I get that Elon has his fanboys here who can ram through every one of his ventures as "noteworthy", but nothing about yet another failed SpaceX launch meets any threshold of notability. Morgan695 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a way to critique the posting without launching into personal attacks. Curbon7 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Pull per all above. If we began giving out nickels for every rocket that failed, we'd be millionaires... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see those other 20,000,000 failed rockets, if you please. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. This story is clearly in the mainstream news worldwide, so just from the angle of notability and the basic guidelines of "substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest," this is clearly ITN-worthy. The rest comes down to minor details about whether it was a "success" or "failure," without recognizing it can be both, and both would be justification for it being on ITN. If you look at sources that don't either love or hate Mr. Musk, it is quite clear that it was both an achievement in terms of the "tallest and the most powerful rocket ever flown" in human history, and that it had a failure in separation. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see how so much more polarized people are since the Falcon Heavy maiden launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose/pull We could debate if the "within certain parameters successful" nature of this makes it ITN-worthy for a long while, or we could just acknowledge that accepting it for the box basically means any attempt to launch something at space now qualifies, setting a horrible precedent for every unimportant step to get a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the most powerful rocket ever, the text currently on the main page, sounds a bit too WP:HYPE to me. Any interest in changing this to the most powerful rocket to date? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - is first launched. Is the word first needed here? Could possibly be removed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of input is better directed towards WP:ERRORS in order for this to be debated on. Captain  Galaxy  22:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. I wasn't sure since it's not technically an error. But I'll give that a try. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Pamela Chopra

 * Oppose. Citing needs a little more work. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Berry

 * Oppose Needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 4 {cn} tags in this wikiarticle, including one for the sentence about the subject's death in this RD nom. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu, @PFHLai, @Curbon7, article has been referenced. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 13:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - there appears to be some confusion over his death date. The cited source, and most newspaper articles, say he died on Wednesday (19 April). But legacy.com obit and an IP editor saying they speak for his family, have said 17 April. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru: Are you referring to this on 17th? If so, it's a different Bob Berry (see full name and other details). —Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Pretty much every source says it was April 19 (including PFA and PFR) – besides that, the article is good enough for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted yes, you're right it was that one and I didn't notice it was a different Bob Berry. That, combined with the IP edit changing it to the 17th, has me confused. All good otherwise so posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry LeGrande

 * Posted Stephen 00:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Petzold

 * Fixed duplicate nom name.... but Support because this article is very well cited, and is long enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks suitable, well-written. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dave Wilcox

 * Support well cited and good length. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a tagged inconsistency in the lead and body regarding his All-NFL selections.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose seriously tagged. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Richard Riordan

 * Support I've added missing citations. The article looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Sanaa stampede

 * Support pending article expansion - seems to pass WP:NEVENTS, but is currently stubby. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 03:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded Huge (and tragic) event, but article still needs more prose, although I think more updates will come in the next few hours/days. Vida0007 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded per above. The Kip (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pending expansion  per above.Ainty Painty (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded per above. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails WP:NEWSEVENT as the sources are just wire stories based on social media and there seems to be no lasting impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , RE: and there seems to be no lasting impact — don't go out of your way to provoke and be offensive. ITNC is not a free-for-all. El_C 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not agreeing with @Andrew Davidson, but how exactly is it offensive? Do you mean he's being offensive towards the people affected? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's highly insensitive at best and a dog whistle at worse, Knightoftheswords281. I can't force humanity or compassion on your or Andrew Davidson's part, but I will enforce minimal decorum. El_C 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C and @Kurtis, oh I'm not saying that @Andrew Davidson was incorrect in his assertion that this has no lasting impact, I was just asking for clarification since for whatever reason, I interpreted 's remarks about being offensive as being directed towards members of ITN and not the victims. I would like to ask, how could his statements be a dogwhistle? -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Referring to the deaths of so many people as having "no lasting impact" will be offensive to the moral sensibilities of most readers because they can envision themselves losing a loved one in such a tragic event. When someone says (even inadvertently) that other people's losses will have no lasting impact, it almost feels like they're saying that my losses will have no lasting impact. It is as though I am vicariously experiencing the death of a relative or close friend in the stampede, and am reading that comment as I grieve for my deceased loved one. That is what makes it offensive to people other than those affected by this tragedy&mdash;we feel their feelings as if they were our own. Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The many hundreds (probably thousands) of people who've lost loved ones in this horrific tragedy will most assuredly experience a "lasting impact" from this event. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, as I will always say, if you think it fails WP:NEVENTS, you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the deaths of 85 people and the injuries of 322 have "no lasting impact". Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of callous bullshit that got LaserLegs banned, Andrew. Cut it out. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, one glaring CN tag needs fixing. If that is fixed, I think this is sufficiently developed to post (though, of course, more expansion is invited).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be of sufficient length and depth for a main page posting, and everything is tied to a reliable source. Though as I said before, don't feel the need to stop making it even better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;An absolutely horrific tragedy. Kurtis (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support—Suggest changing blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Unusual event, high number of casualties, article meets our minimum posting standards but is unfortunately quite short. The reports linked above have further details that could be added to the article, but that shouldn't hold up posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence that this meets WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Shots fired by the Houthi de facto administration, ostensibly for crowd control, caused an accidental explosion and panic. At least 90 people were killed and 322 people injured in the ensuing crush."
 * It meets WP:NEVENTS. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which provision of NEVENTS does it meet? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. Obviously I wish it affected zero people, but this falls far below the threshold of "national or international". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. You don't think the deaths of nearly a hundred people in a single event is noteworthy enough to be on the main page??? I'm sorry, but just... how? Kurtis (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat my earlier question. Which provision of WP:NEVENTS does it meet? I'm arguing that the deaths of nearly a hundred people is not "national or international" in scope. Are you disputing that? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll break it down, underlining the relevant bits for emphasis:
 * • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The stampede in Sanaa is not a "routine" event; human stampedes resulting in around 100 deaths is something that rarely happens. Routine in the context of deaths would be things like car accidents, school shootings in the U.S. with less than 10 casualties, terrorist attacks in Somalia with less than 10 casualties, etc. Things that happen all the time and are unexceptional in terms of death toll. 100 people is an exceptionally high number of people to die in a human stampede, which itself is not an everyday event.
 * • It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Self-explanatory.
 * • WP:GEOSCOPE&mdash;An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. It is too early to say exactly how this stampede will impact Yemen in the years to come, but losing nearly 100 people in a single incident will absolutely resonate in some form or fashion for a very long time.
 * • WP:INDEPTH&mdash;The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines Also WP:DIVERSE&mdash;Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Reuters, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera&mdash;need I go on? Also note that none of them are mirrors of one another; they are all original articles written by each outlet.
 * So yes, I think notability is pretty clearly established here. Even by the strictest standards for ITN, this tragedy is noteworthy and significant. Kurtis (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Routine events are usually not notable, but it does not follow that non-routine events are usually notable. There's no WP:DEATHCOUNT policy because that's not how we measure notability (try as ITN regulars might).
 * Recent events aren't automatically non-notable, but they're not automatically notable either. And notability requires verifiable evidence. If that verifiable evidence does not exist, then we assume that it is not notable.
 * This has not had "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group". As I said above, it had such an impact on a few hundred/thousand people. Sure, it's possible that this will cause some major social or legal change in Yemen, but we're getting deep into WP:CRYSTAL at that point.
 * I think the part of INDEPTH that should be highlighted is "must be significant and not in passing". As in, we need to see that it's not just a news story but an actual encyclopedic subject.
 * This is just another article that was made because someone saw it in the news, with no regard for whether it has lasting encyclopedic significance. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Serious question If an American mass shooting isn't notable enough to post in part because "nothing changes", then why is a stampede notable enough to post? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, this question inherently implies that stampedes resulting in multiple deaths are common in Yemen. Second of all, 90 people are dead. As much as this community dislikes blurbing American mass shootings, if an American mass shooting reached 90 deaths it would've most certainly been posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS then? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To some degree I suppose, but general significance comes into effect too.
 * As @Kurtis states above, mass shootings, terrorist attacks, etc with less than 10 casualties are unfortunately commonplace; ones with 100+ are not. Add in the fact it was a human stampede, which doesn't exactly happen too often, and you've got a fairly notable event. The Kip (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking around, and I don't see any indication that this article has been nominated for AfD. I thought surely if this article failed WP:NEVENTS that it'd be slated for deletion. What's the waiting around for? ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the WP:RAPID issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that then makes opposing on the basis of failing WP:NEVENT inapplicable, as we're still in that stage of the article being a developing story - which is that very stage that makes it an ITN candidate since we only have up to 7 days to post a story anyway. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Thebiguglyalien's view that a stampede that causes 100 deaths fails NEVENT is in line with community consensus, and nominating such articles at AfD would quickly bear that out. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I believe there is a good reason to post and the article seems of good quality. Captain  Galaxy  11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - and I find the fails NEVENT vote to be completely specious. Yes, English language sources are hard to find that cover poor people in Yemen in much depth, but this is widely covered in the Arabic press, see for example Al Jazeera, al Arabiya, al-Quds al-Arabi. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Miguel Díaz-Canel is re-elected for a second term

 * Oppose. The president of Cuba is not recognized as having significant power (hence why this is not ITNR), instead that being the first leader if the communist party, whichDiaz-Canal also holds. So there is no real change here. --M asem (t) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The president of Cuba has no real power on his own. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bud Shuster

 * Oppose Article is currently orange tagged for the aforementioned source work. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moonbin

 * Oppose Filmography still needs quite a bit of work to be worthy of ITNRD ready, and there are a couple of uncited statements in the article otherwise. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article is quite okay now. Deep sorrow for Arohas. Htanaungg (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consider for blurb? - Based on the fact that it was one of the first items on the BBC newsreel just now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by our article he does not seem to have been a massive figure in any of the fields, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd give a no on that, but when I first heard about his death, I did think the idea does have some weight. He doesn't seem like that major a figure in K-pop from my (limited) understanding of the genre going off what I know, but also going off what I know, he is a pretty well-known person within K-pop circles. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Checking the BBC rn, its seems that his death, like many other Kpop-artists deaths, are receiving a lot of coverage in relation to the slave-esque working conditions within the industry (see for example, Sulli, which also received a lot of international attetion). My understanding is that blurbs for deaths are posted if a) the individual was GOATed, or b) their death was extremely unusual or otherwise notable in of itself, none of which is really applicable to our boy here. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think it warrants a blurb either, though a tragic death. Still, it was worth bringing up IMO PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD contingent on the missing citations in the filmography section being fixed. I do not see anything unsourced that needs one in the article body.  Oppose blurb. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good now. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. greyzxq  talk 15:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak conditional support - there are still some uncited sentences. Also, I'm concerned about the section on his career, where the latter two subsections are in list format instead of prose. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've since tagged the sections in question. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Two yellow tags and two CN tags still left. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: The citation needed are for cameo roles that I feel are unimportant and may even warrant removal. Lightoil (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update Looks like the cn tags have been addressed now. Vida0007 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Torkham landslide

 * Oppose Article is not in a state worth posting on the main page. It's basically a stub, with the information basically being a restatement of the blurb (that there had been such a landslide) or banal and uninteresting information about the number of emergency vehicles responding to the event; which is probably so trivial that it doesn't belong and feels like padding the total text.  The article needs a considerable expansion before this is main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jayron and quality issues with the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now. Article isn't much longer than a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. There's too little information available to make an informed decision or write a minimum-length article. If/when more details emerge (e.g. casualty numbers), and the article is updated, I'll be willing to reconsider. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Still very short. Curbon7 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) India becomes the world's most populous country

 * Support post pending updates in the article Significant and expected milestone that is expected to be remain unchanged for most part of this century. India's population surpassed 1.428 billion, slightly higher than China’s 1.425 billion people, according to the UN’s World Population dashboard. Regards,  theTigerKing  12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article currently does not match this news. Is it a projection for later this year? Possibly not a particularly helpful thing for us to feature, as the list won't get a significant update in prose. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Reuters, this is happening "later this month". So it seems we're not there yet, but on the brink. Curbon7 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The discrepancy comes from India not having accurate census data and resistance from the PRC, who want their number to include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Curbon7 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Wikipedia article we're supposed to highlight says "China: 1,411,750,000" and "India: 1,392,329,000". Math is not my strong suit, so someone is going to need to double check my calculations, but I believe that 1,392,329,000 is not more than 1,411,750,000.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to be so snarky? You can communicate your concern in a more courteous manner. Zagal e jo (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but snark has the advantage of drawing attention to it. Your response is evidence that it works as intended. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, 3 + 3 = 7. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for India to actually overtake China - As per @Maplestrip. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when India actually supersedes China per above. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Further comment - also the bolded article is orange-tagged. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The UN projection is that it'll overtake China by mid-2023, not that it has already happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article does not reflect this information, and the UN report says that this isn't estimated to happen until mid-2023. ARandomName123 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article still says that China is the most populated, so Article Should be updated. and I'm pretty sure 1,411,750,000 is larger than 1,392,329,000. even if that was the case where it is larger, this would naturally still not be ITN-worthy, for that a country surpassing another in population is not really that ITN-worthy. basically, article should be updated. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 it's happened again! The Kip (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose by virtue of the fact that this is an estimate. I think it's irresponsible to run a ITN story on something that may not have happened yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose now because it hasn't even happened yet, but Support for when it does happy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment- India is projected to have 3 million more people by the middle of the 2023. We may not have definite date and time on when it will happen this year. Different statistics and population measuring websites have their timers running at different rate and scales. And most importantly, they are just the projections and estimates. Exact figures at a given point may be hard to extrapolate, given different countries have their own way and timelines of determining the population of its people within its national borders. Thought was good to have it nominated considering it is trending everywhere today. Will nevertheless, it will become a fact this year that the country has actually over taken China as the worlds most populous nation on the planet. Regards,  theTigerKing   14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, at least, since everyone else has brought up that it hasn't actually happened yet. But since India is on track to become the most populous country sometime this year, I'll support when it makes it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. DecafPotato (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. It hasn't actually happened yet. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is a reason we rely on recent censuses or relaible ("current") population estimates; both haven't happened yet. Gotitbro (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the official censuses of China and India have been released. We cannot rely on projections alone, not to mention that the target article still states that China is more populous than India (as of this writing, at least). Vida0007 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2021 census of India has been delayed multiple times by the authorities. There is no clear indication when the census will be conducted. It could be after the next general election planned in May 2024. Maxxies (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature at this point. The sources quoted say that India is projected to become the most populous country some time in mid-2023, not that it has already happened. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. At this time, it is only a projection. It would be preferable to wait until it is actually happened. However, the population estimate would not be able to be verified as the estimate and projection are based on the 2011 Indian Census. The 2021 Indian census has been delayed several times and no timeline has been provided by the Indian authorities for this census.^^Maxxies (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Sudan clashes

 * This article looks appropriate for ongoing when the blurb rolls off. We shouldn't move to ongoing before then, but starting the discussion is helpful. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull The number of casualties is sourced to The Meghalayan. Checking that out, I find that it's a news site based in NE India.  I doubt that they have any reporters anywhere near the scene and so are just compiling rumours from the Internet as clickbait.  The article contains a map which shows areas supposedly controlled by each side.  So far as I can tell, that's OR / speculation.
 * Essentially, this is a chaotic civil war and the sides are naturally making wild claims and accusations of atrocities, false flag operations and any other propaganda which occurs to them. Russian mercenaries are involved in this as there's gold to be gained and so you can expect dirty tricks and misinformation from them too.
 * We're an encyclopedia, not a news source, and so we're supposed to work from reliable sources to provide settled facts. This conflict is an uncertain work-in-progress and so we should await the verdict of history rather than joining the fray too.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't the appropriate place to soapbox about your opinions on the war. It's clearly a topic which is well covered in the news.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion is of the quality of our article, which is poor. For example, the NYT reports that, "In the turmoil, it was unclear who controlled various parts of the capital.  Each day, one side or the other has claimed control of key installations, including airports and the state broadcaster, only to have the claims quickly disputed."  But our article leads with a precise and detailed map showing the supposed control of each side.  A footnote explains that this is "Based upon Timeline section"  and that's tagged as "improper synthesis".  Another section has an orange cleanup tag which has been there for over two days.  The general situation seems quite chaotic due to the fog of war and so we can't expect quick fixes for such issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's what you had meant, you should have said that instead of what you said the first time. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have the opportunity to dig deeper into this subject right now, but I'm uncomfortable that no one below has responded to these concerns either. Death toll is now cited to Al Jazeera at least, but beyond that, do you still feel like written coverage of these clashes is improving yet? Is our own article on the subject at a high enough quality right now? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support when it would roll off, the article is receiving appropriate, continuous updates and that qualifies it for ongoing. It's fine leaving it as a blurb for now, but it also seems to qualify for Ongoing when and if it would roll off.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support if still ongoing when its blurb rolls off per @Jayron32. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above, if the situation is still ongoing Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once blurb rolls off, assuming the conflict is still active. The Kip (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quite an alarming situation. From what experts predict, this is likely the start of a years long conflict and likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Citing: Ecrusized (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . . . likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Oh no, not another one of those. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;A significant and ongoing development. Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing when the blurb rolls off, not before. The situation continues to be very fluid and zones of control are changing rapidly. Teh article is getting substantial updates every day. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the reason behind waiting for the blurb rolling off? Is there a consensus for not double posting? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support One of the most significant political events happening at this moment Synotia (moan) 10:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Blurb rolled off. Curbon7 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Maguire

 * Weak oppose Media work and Retirement still have some clean up/uncited areas that need to be fixed, but it won't be hard. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * READY The article has attracted a large amount of editing since the death. Looks good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is adequate enough for RD.  Ollieisanerd  (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS???  Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In part, the new vector skin makes it hard to see all the noms on a page. M asem (t) 02:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins are people too, you can't just snap your fingers and summon one like royalty. There are only around three admins who actively post RDs, and they have lives too. I also have some noms that have been tagged as ready for a couple days, and I'm not complaining, because I know it'll get done eventually. Or if a nom is about to roll-off this page, just leave a message on the talk page and that usually does the trick. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat - Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. You might know, but it's not obvious to me who the posting Admins are. It's 28 hours since I suggested the article was ready. In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did anyone (like you) mark it ready in the header line so that it would stand out to help the admins identify it? M asem (t) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? I am but a humble editor, who can never remember all the arcane rules and policies of this place. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A job is something you are paid to do. Admins are volunteers like everybody else here, and if you think youre entitled to somebody's time and attention for free then let me introduce you to a place called Wikipedia. Anyway, given there was one oppose when you proclaimed "ready" and now one support, it doesnt seem readily apparent that there was consensus for the posting. Youd have been better off pinging Fakescientist8000 and asking them to look again then demanding some action taken. And for the record support - looks fine for RD. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One rule here that I do remember is that we don't vote. Admins are supposed assess the quality of contributions. And the sequence of comments, including mine, obviously addressed that Oppose. I know we're all volunteers, but Admins are very powerful volunteers who have sought a special status. If they cannot cope with the role, sack 'em! Or change the system. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * please consider this a formal warning for civility. Carry on with language like that and you will end up with a block. Admins are no more required to give their time to any particular job than you are, or indeed required to give their time at all. The best way to encourage us to do what you want is to ask politely, the worst way is to demand and insult. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of behaviour from Admins that has led to my general lack of respect for them. Threatening me won't change my opinion. Acknowledging that I might be just a little bit right would help a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you were a little bit right I would have acknowledged that. You were not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready. There are multiple citation needed tags and a tag for vague time. I do not have time at the moment to attempt to resolve the tags. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you not say this three days ago? we are now almost halfway through the period a nomination will sit here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because when I left the comment above was the first time I've seen the article. I don't look at ITN every day, and don't look at every nomination when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * HiLo's little temper tantrum about admins aside, this article still has a few CN tags left in it before it can be put onto the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Todd Haimes

 * Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article seems worse than it actually is because it doesn't have sections. It's actually not too bad for holisticity, I think the only thing is some expansion of his later career, which only has a brief mention. Curbon7 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Curbon7. Trying to find more that isn't just the rehashed obituaries. There's a fair amount in context of Roundabout's 50th. Star   Mississippi  13:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Expanded enough to become start-class, and no longer a stub! Well-sourced! Tails   Wx  03:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you @Stephen @Tails Wx. Team work makes it all work. Star   Mississippi  01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , no problem! And isn't it also "Team work makes the dream work"? ;)  Tails   Wx  01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

 * Oppose Needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great job,, but please take the reference out of the section header per MOS:SECTIONHEAD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography section has no references. Prose has at least 7 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support looks good! Tails   Wx  23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with thanks for your tireless efforts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This looks good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Charles Stanley

 * Oppose article is orange tagged, and with good reason. Many CN tags are in both the 'Influences and theology' and 'Personal life' sections of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Curbon7, @Fakescientist8000, I've sourced up the article. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Supriyo v. Union of India

 * Not really what ongoing is for, consider nominating when a decision is announced? Courcelles (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OutwardSpiral you have proposed a blurb but also marked it as "Ongoing"; you can't do both as there are no blurbs in the Ongoing section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated! Thank you for pointing it out -- indeed, the article was nominated as a blurb, and I misinterpreted the ongoing tag. OutwardSpiral (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope you do realise that Narendra Modi never once said anything unfavourable against homosexuals while Manmohan Singh, the so-called progressive left wing prime minister called it contrary to India's values. When Shashi Tharoor proposed to legalise same sex marriage, his own party didn't support him in the lok sabha while the head of the RSS publicly called for the respect of sexual minorities with hindu based arguments Varoon2542 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose but A blurb on the verdict (if in favour of same-sex marriage) would be more sensible. DogeChungus (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose trials don't typically go in ongoing, if that's the objective here. Neutral on a blurb of the verdict. The Kip (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If the Supreme Court indeed legalizes same-sex marriage in India, this should be posted. It would be historic and notable from multiple angles. It would be the largest country to have same-sex marriage. It would literally double the number of people on earth in a same-sex marriage country b/c of India’s large population. It would also be notable as a post-colonial non-Western country legalizing. With this said, I’m not sure if this should be in ongoing; granted the trial is two weeks long if I remember correctly, which may be an argument for doing so. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if it results in legalization I think there's a solid argument for a blurb, for the reasons listed. I just personally don't think it should be in ongoing, nor blurbed until a verdict is reached. The Kip (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merely 'begins consideration'. If the court makes a landmark ruling, we can consider it then. Simply starting their work is not significant enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing finalized, neither definitive nor firm. Not noticeable yet. What is clear is that it's a case that indeed has an important impact on society, more than any other in which one has to pay millions to others for defamations. Let's discuss this when we have a firm sentence. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Dominion v. Fox

 * Support Significant settlement in a highly watched case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Considering this is one of the biggest impacts from Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election, this would make sense for the notability guidelines. No issues on quality, either. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The Kip (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t see any notable consequences from this. Neither is Dominion Voting Systems a global brand so that its defamation can be considered a big deal, nor is Fox News banned from broadcasting as a result, nor does this ruling prevent Trump from running for president. This would’ve been a scandal had Trump been an incumbent president, but it’s just a minor fallout with a long delay.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is easily one of the largest settlements for a defamation suit in legal history. Dominion is not a global brand, but Fox is. This is being widely described as a de-facto admission of guilt on the part of Fox. It may have a significant impact on the networks reputation and may also be a harbinger for the remaining legal cases Fox is facing. Trump was not a party to the case, so it's impact, or lack thereof on him is irrelevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, Fox isn’t banned from broadcasting as a result. However this will affect its reputation is too early to say, and it’d be challenging to measure it in foreseeable future (probably by number of viewers). I tried to compare this to Volkswagen emissions scandal, but it appears to be a minor thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, a discussion to revisit its reliability at WP:RSPSS will also take place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I added a single cn tag and I'd like to see some expansion of the section on the settlement. But the article is good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality and significance both good enough. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not a particularly serious crime (worse is an electoral crime or a call to uprising), nor has it had an important international follow-up, nor is it going to change anything. Fights between two big companies. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This was an electoral "crime", Fox lied about Dominion's voting machines to influence the election and sow doubt about the results. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not a criminal case but a civil one, but I question how one thinks that three quarters of a billion dollars is somehow not "serious". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality check, significance check, this is quite historic that one of the major news channels in America admits lying about news concerning the US election. And then also paying out a major sum of money for it.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good quality, citation needed tag resolved! Tails   Wx  23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The traditionally hesitant ITN is eager to support a settlement in a meaningless case. In the United States, this will receive a few days attention at most. ITN has very rarely, if ever, covered a lawsuit between two companies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quality article (although could use a little more information regarding the settlement), historically significant settlement amount.  Spencer T• C 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ultimately, most cases are settled out of court. Sure this one is notable, but what are the impacts of such a settlement? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ElijahPepe, and the fact that this is a side-story in the general election. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ElijahPepe. DecafPotato (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Big news in Australia. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How about the world? Murdoch's circle of lies spans three countries, but not much more. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no requirements for posting a blurb in ITN that the news it covers relates to "the world". -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. The Dadeville shooting, the Supreme Court case on the Sabbath, and the shooting of Ralph Yarl are all notable because they were top headlines in the U.S. Conversely, local news in Tanzania or Cambodia is also notable because it's in the news there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally no one, in this discussion, argued for any of that. In this current conversation, you were the only person to mention any of that.  Also, zero of those stories are posted in ITN right now.  If you're going to invent things that no one said or did, and then object to that, well, that's just silly.  You need to focus on the words that are being said, and talk with people about what they are saying, not invent things never said, and then pretend like that's a reasonable objection.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you're getting from point A to B. I'm saying that the logic that something somewhere in the world is notable is unreasonable, and it applies the same here. ITN implicitly has that in order to prevent it from getting stories that have zero impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality is fine for posting to ITN. Passes WP:NEVENTS. To @ElijahPepe, I would like to ask, especially with how fluid consensus on ITN can be, I would like to state that just because we haven't posted these types of stories before doesn't mean that we should never. Consensus (again, especially on ITN) can change. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, a meaningful, notable case with long-term repercussions. The enormous sum of money lost by Fox suggests that they expected to lose even more if they went to trial. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a staggering amount of money to lose in a defamation suit—or really in anything—and it comes as part of a chain of events that's been national and international news for years now. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an oppose nor a support, as I think it might be notable enough for ITN, but I seriously wish people would let discussions run for a reasonable amount of time. This ran for around 12 hours, and for much of that time Europe and Asia would have been asleep. Where I am it was posted at 20:46 and the last comment was at 07:53 - so I've only just seen it myself. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not really rising to the significance bar for which we usually post stories, and we are not a news ticker. Why was this posted? I don't think there's consensus above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A settlement, not a juried verdict. I doubt this would even be a blip here if it involved CNN, for some reason. CoatCheck (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. Not meeting the global significance bar for ITN. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no bar for global significance. That phrase (or any reasonable synonym of it) appears nowhere in the documentation at WP:ITN or any other guidance on Wikipedia. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support News source coverage is evidence this is a significant story, and the article is of sufficient quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm awake and able to weigh in, post-posting support. It's plenty significant enough, it's in the news, the article is up to par. What more is needed? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Widely covered by reliable sources and good quality article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the largest defamation settlements in US history (and given the total, I imagine it's one of the largest in recent world history). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — The motion to post was made far too early for any consensus to develop. Regardless, ITN is not the place for high scores or monetary achievements, especially when the "achievement" is arbitrary. A settlement is not even an admission of guilt. The world will, and has, moved on. If ITN is to be treated as In the U.S. news, then I suppose I should start reviewing accordingly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is literally one story about the United States on ITN right now. The other stories are Sudan, Ghana, and Europe. Try again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at all of the recommended articles we've got in ITN (highlights in blurbs, ongoing, and RDs), you can add to the list ongoing links about France, Israel, and Ukraine, and recent deaths of a resident of India, Northern Ireland, India, Germany/U.S., Ireland, and Switzerland. We have quite a good balance of stories, and the U.S. is certainly not over-represented.  Indeed, India, with two RD stories, has the most representation.  Isn't it great to actually look at what is written, rather than inventing things to be upset about, and then complaining about the stuff you invented? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's one story because it's the only one nominated. We don't need an article for the United States for representation. If we do something truly notable, then we can have an ITN entry. The U.S. hasn't done anything exceptional, and that's fine. This is the mentality that I'm used to and sensibly guided this part of the main page. This nomination seems to have subverted that for no reason . elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of nominations for US stories that have been rejected. Just currently on this page there are nominations for Shooting of Ralph Yarl, Dadeville shooting, for the Phantom of the Opera ending on Broadway, for 2023 Rutgers University strike, and that isnt counting the aborted SpaceX launch. Can try again if you like. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Before you go whirling off saying that "ITN is just US-pedia" I would encourage you to run your own some statistics about how much the U.S. is actually represented on ITN so as to back up your assertion, and furthermore, note also there is nothing precluding you from nominating equivalent stories of this sort across the pond or in other nations as well, so long as reliable sources exist and the coverage is there. As it is, your comment just says "I don't like this" which isn't really the best vehicle to induce systematic change. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote the initial article on the lawsuit before it was turned into a redirect and then recreated. If you believe my comment is IDONTLIKEIT, you've skimmed it over. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with my reasoning. I don't care whether or not you created the article, because that fact is not relevant to this discussion. You believe the article shouldn't have been posted to begin with, because by your own words, you feel it's not notable worldwide -- which is not how items should be judged here. If you want a criteria for global significance, get it created. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Zambia's mining sector has a female executive for the first time. According to the mentality global significance doesn't matter, that's ITN-worthy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please disassemble your straw man argument and do not put words in my mouth. I specifically said there is no criteria for global significance and that is all that I meant, without casting any prejudgments on the newsworthiness or notability of any other stories. If you want to nominate them on the basis of their significance, go right ahead. If not, then there is no relevance. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You approved this nomination purely on the basis of the lack of consensus, when it clearly exists. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - meets threshold. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - civil claim between two companies over defamation, and it was settled, not decided. Not a precedent that "fake news is bad". Juxlos (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Vladimir Kara-Murza

 * Oppose Somewhat covered by ongoing, and otherwise, not sure if notable enough for blurbing; I don't remember if we blurbed Navalny's arrest. The Kip (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you understand me?--СтасС (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if I do. The Kip (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Another wiki has in headlines news. (in templates, for example: ru-wiki СтасС (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing. --M asem (t) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Already covered by ongoing, and will continue to be covered by ongoing until it is removed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This case has had much greater international coverage than the one above. But it is covered in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is covered by the ongoing item. However, if notable related events continue to happen (e.g. arrests, information leaks, changes in economic sanctions etc.) while the invasion is in a slow mode, with the Battle of Bakhmut being the main military engagement, there are growing arguments that the ongoing item should be removed so that space for new blurbs is freed (anyway, we won’t keep it in ongoing for good).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Chris Smith

 * Oppose on article quality. Way too many unsourced statements in the article to pass through onto ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Still sourcing and holisticity issues. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - @Curbon7, @Fakescientist8000, @The Kip; I've fixed the sourcing issues. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 21:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert del Rosario

 * Support Article is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --38.106.246.207 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is 100% ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Beijing hospital fire

 * Oppose No article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Reopening now that an article has emerged. Oppose on quality, as it's a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of the article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and will vote once I am done doing so! Tails   Wx  16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gee, an article creator voting on their own work. I wonder how that'll go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, instead of needless sarcasm, we should praise article writers for their hard work, and for their transparency when commenting on an ITN nomination of said work. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ long ago: curprev 16:36, 18 April 2023‎ Tails Wx talk contribs‎ 111 bytes +111‎  Start thanked Tag: Visual edit--СтасС (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that writing articles is bad, nor is being transparent about writing those articles. What I do have an issue with is with the article creator voting on his/her/their own article on ITN/C, because voting is more for third parties to look at its notability/quality/"does this belong on ITN" from a neutral POV, and I don't think that the article creator (and I'm not trying to single anybody out! This goes for anyone) would ever 'Oppose' their own work. Just my 2 cents on it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't remember the exact nom, but there was one within the last week or so in which the article creator voted against posting. The Kip (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Kicking that we should be applauding people who create articles and then bringing them forward for an ITN nomination. Cheers to you too! --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is, where am I in the credits section? ;) Tails   Wx  18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅--СтасС (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tails   Wx  19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When do you put in our template this news?--СтасС (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending expansion. The article has two small paragraphs, and not much else.  Is this really all the information we have?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ralph Yarl shooting

 * Oppose People (especially in the US) are shot everyday, there are protests everyday, politicians give their sympathies, articles are made, and then someone else is shot. Had this happened in a country where guns are much stricter, it would easily pass, but I can't support this on these notability issues and also the quality of the article, as it appears to be quickly made and is essentially a stub at this point in time. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fakescientist. Unfortunately all too commonplace. The Kip (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons other such shootings have not been posted; unless notable protests emerge. The noms by Knight are fast appearing to be WP:POINTY. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How exactly? There is nothing in ITN criteria that prohibits these nominations. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 03:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly seeing what you're accusing here. Sure, most of their noms haven't quite met the ITNR notability bar, but in my opinion they've been good-faith noms. The Kip (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that coming up with arbitrary non-policy standards (like protests) is closer to WP:POINTY. Either it meets policy requirements or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the recourse is WP:AfD. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support For all the same reasons I've given before, reasons that make this different than shootings we shouldn't post, like the Dadeville shooting. I won't debate it further because I know this nomination isn't going anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Did someone change WP:Notability (events) so that everything in the daily newspaper's crime section can get an article? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The enthusiasm in bringing stories to ITN/C is appreciated but this story falls far short of ITN/C levels of notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the event is unique, and has received broad coverage. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - at this time. Not unique case for the US unfortunately. I would change my mind if in the coming days protests etc would start happening in connection to this. BabbaQ (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deaths from gun violence are commonplace in the US. And it appears that deaths from people shooting visitors to their house are also commonplace: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/nyregion/man-charged-kaylin-gillis-driveway-shooting.html Chrisclear (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Hinrichs

 * Long enough (404 words of prose). No formatting issues. Footnotes can be found where they are expected and spot-checks found no problems with referencing. Earwig has complaints, either. This nom is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready per . Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

 * Oppose Needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great job,, but please take the reference out of the section header per MOS:SECTIONHEAD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography section has no references. Prose has at least 7 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support looks good! We've got 27 minutes for this to be posted to the main page, so, uh... Tails   Wx  23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleh Barna

 * Support - wanted to nominate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Agf the sources. Slava Ukraini. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Syria truffle hunter attack

 * Oppose for now for multiple issues, sadly. 1, the article's a stub and needs expansion, and 2, there's a tag, though it can be fixed! Tails   Wx  21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance (and the EUAA link doesnt say anything about this). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance/notability, article quality, and the fact that that the article is tagged. Sure, the article can be fixed, but it's gonna take a lot of effort and sources to do so. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, Editor 5426387 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, article's a stub. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Could be convinced that this is notable if there's a government response. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Note that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights maintains a "daily death toll" for incidents like this and they list several incidents every day. Some parts of the world like Syria and Sudan have endemic conflict and violence and so it goes.  See the map for the hotspots which typically last for years. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose But maybe find hook for DYK around the truffs? For me it was interesting to learn that in Syria it also has truffs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose seemingly a common event in that part of the world, as noted in that article's bg section and above. --M asem (t) 20:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; article has little information about the event itself; it is mostly background information currently. Would need some expansion to be main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to article quality, although the attack is important enough to be posted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) SpaceX Starship

 * Absolutely support, but add to the blurb that it's the largest rocket created up to date. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - this is WP:ITN/R. Article is of sufficient quality to be posted (though there is one CN tag in the Mission profile section). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not anymore btw... it was removed from ITN/R. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Both largest and most powerful rocket built ever. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming the launch isn't delayed or scrubbed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Close - Launch scrubbed. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Faith Thomas

 * Support Article is good, well cited and long enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Prose and sourcing both look good. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I was on my way to nominate this article, glad to see someone took up the initiative! Notable individual and the article checks out! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

 * Support. Major national event involving a notable facility in Finland receiving international coverage. Article is sufficient for the main page. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is like on page 12 below the fold of even European papers. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not 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. - ITN criteria. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I do that? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You just insinuated that it shouldn't be posted since even most Europeans would care. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, thats not what I did. If you dont understand my comment maybe dont badger me about it? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's... not really what they did.
 * They're using the example of most Europeans not caring about an event in Europe to illustrate the idea that this isn't particularly significant. That criteria would be moreso if they insinuated it shouldn't be posted because it's only about Finland. The Kip (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In light of Germany shutting down their last nuclear power plants this weekend this is interesting. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting =/= notable. The Kip (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, right. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One of ITN's stated purposes is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Interesting might not be equal to notable, but interesting should nonetheless play a major role in determining which articles to post. Despite your oppose rationale of "more suited to DYK" (which is inapplicable DYK only applies to a new article or a five-fold expansion of an existing article), this is actually making news and we should be serving Wikipedia's readers by providing information from a well-written article, not withholding it on account of a draconian standard of significance established by a handful of users. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With the clarification that this is not Europe's largest nuclear plant but rather an expansion of the existing power plant with what is now the largest single reactor in Europe, I see even less significance here. Beyond that, its not on the front page of the just the world section of WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Times of London, Le Monde. Hell, it isnt even the top Finland story in Le Monde's international section, that would be this story on Finland erecting a barrier with Russia. Seems like there is consensus to post, but I dont really get why, this is barely news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice to see there's at least one country in the world that knows the right way to generate energy. Still, "largest in Europe" isn't ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "largest in Europe" isn't ITN material That about sums up WP:ITN's bewildering idiosyncrasies in a nutshell. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * TIL what 'idiosyncrasies' means. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what is an idiosyncrasy here. I think it's darn clear by now that I have a high bar when it comes to ITN. In fact, I could probably be swayed to at least strike my vote here. However, I'm not seeing that bar met at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You've created your own standard that's not based in any policy or guideline. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As compared to the rigid standards that accompany most other nominations? The standard is "significance". The significance billing here is "largest in Europe", which is an arbitrary distinction. It is the same reason I opposed the self-driving cars nom, which I would have supported if it were a "world first", such as was the case with the Ghana and the malaria vaccine. Don't get me wrong, I find this quite interesting, but a lot of the other arguments regarding the merits of posting seem a little sensationalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * significance of which nowhere in ITN is a clearly defined variable for it is defined. Under these rules, sure, you maybe able to have exceptionally high standards for ITN, but @WaltCip for example has a low bar for ITN stories (this is why I think the significance criterion should be deprecated or majorly reformed). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And why am I being called out for this? I said my bar was higher, and I acknowledge that others may not have said bar. It's that simple. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Knightoftheswords281 You want it to be deprecated/reformed? Take it to Wikipedia talk:ITN/C, please, and don't take it out on DarkSide. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose as I've been convinced by later arguments. Support. The Kip (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Beautiful-looking article, well-cited and even some lovely pictures of inside and out. Seems like a perfect article and subject to feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work This will make a good twofer with the German phase-out. But there's some stuff about the mafia which needs clarifying. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A long-anticipated power plant that has been under construction for decades, and the largest of its kind in Europe. It broke news on my NYTimes email updates, which only send out for major events. I certainly think it's newsworthy. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I stumbled upon the article after reading the news and ended up making a quick edit. Would like to see it get more views and thereby accrue some more information which would be fitting for a plant of this size. Mithridates (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This event has significant economic and geopolitical implications for Europe, particularly in regards to relations with Russia, as well as implications for the rest of the world regarding climate change energy alternatives. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant geopolitical implication given the past two decades of climate emergency. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not a significant development and not as widely covered in the international media to merit inclusion on ITN. More people live in China, India or in Africa alone than they do in Europe. I suggest nominating this at DYK instead. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we shouldn't feature stories from Europe on ITN? That might be the most egregious and absurd violation of the fourth clause of the "Please do not" section on ITN voting conduct. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this us like the malaria vaccine story.. we're not going to post every nuclear power plant opening, but this the largest one planned for a long while. Article is good shape. --M asem (t) 17:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If posted, the blurb needs to be adjusted. The nuclear power plant has been running since the 1980s, but the newsworthy thing is that they completed/opened a new nuclear reactor in the power plant on April 16. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Updated. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see how this reaches the bar for ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rockstone and DarkSide. This is just.......an update on a building being built? That happens in literally every country, all the time. That's not ITN worthy, see WP:FASTCYCLE. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Large infrastructure does get built in most countries, yet few have such detailed articles written on them. We also sometimes feature the opening of bridges, tunnels, or railways. Other constructions tend to have less distinct start-dates of operations, so it can be harder to feature (for example) large towers or road networks in ITNs. However, these are all great subjects for a well-updated encyclopedia to feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Important both energy and international policy related.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. It's nice to see that at least some European nations are taking positive steps for renewable energy. On a more serious note the expansion of this nuclear power plant has been a somewhat major issue within Finland for a long time due to the massive delays, which makes its eventual opening even more significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's a pretty solid article, though the update (a single sentence in the lead) is a bit thin. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltCip and Flyingfishee. Shanes (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted  Spencer T• C 03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Admin decision needed) The Phantom of the Opera

 * Oppose: This probably is more suited for DYK. 167.91.2.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard to see how it would be eligible, unless it becomes a GA very quickly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I was actually just about to nominate this myself. Per my "subject article = newsworthy" clause, I think it should be posted. This is a major drama-related news (I know a lot of y'all like that) that had already been receiving sustained, international, WP:RS coverage before, all of which has been accentuated since its last showing. I'm not to invested in theater myself, and even I was getting bombarded with stories from even non-American outlets regarding this story. Unfortunately, the Phantom article itself is littered with various tags. On a similar note, I would also support including the Majestic theater as a bolded article, as it would be a great way to feature a GA on the main page. By the way, for the folks that always oppose ITN noms with "this is more suited to DYK," are y'all actually aware of the criteria for posting to DYK? -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even if the recent event is deemed newsworthy, the target article cannot sustain a "quality update" without giving the closure WP:UNDUE weight.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how; the few sentences necessary to note the final performance would not overwhelm the rest of the text in the article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The date and final cast were set some time ago. The only updates I see in the last week are a performance-by-performance log of the actor performing the phantom. So it's already undue, and I can't imagine what else there is to say.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ITN? Because this wasn't nominated for WP:ITN/R. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial trivia is WP:DYK's cup of tea, not ours. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Should clarify its the longest ever running show, as the blurb could be read as longest running at the time of its last performance. But oppose on significance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I'm very uninformed about opera, but what's stopping them from just performing again in 1-2 years? We've had issues in ITN in the past where "best of their generation" athletes announced their retirements, only to come out of retirement. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a revival production which isn't counted as adding to the original production run, so the numbering would restart. So a 2025 revival would break the run record in 2061. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if article sourced. Huge milestone in English-language musical theatre and impossible to surpass for at least a decade and likely even longer. However, the article has several sourcing deficiencies at the moment. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm always a bit unconvinced with the ending of theatre runs, as a new Phantom of the Opera will surely go in production in a few years. That being said, this is indeed a record. If the article is updated sufficiently and well-cited, I'd enjoy seeing it on ITN. I think this is a great subject for us to feature, a fine moment to celebrate the longevity of this play. Right now, I feel like the article isn't quite there yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Professional theater almost never makes it to ITN; the Tony Awards are ITN/R but no one ever bothers to nominate them nor bring them up to quality. This is an opportunity to post a story in an area that has almost zero representation. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can wait to see your nomination this June. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on my radar. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The end of an era as they say. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The show started in London years ahead of Broadway. It's still running there but there's talk of it ending later this year and, if that happens, there would be an encore as the primary and longest run is the one that matters most.  Note also that we had this nominated last September.  It's effectively like sports retirements as you can expect that there will be yet more productions and revivals in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Unabashed Phantom fan here, I think it can barely meet notability requirements but not by much. Fine if it doesn't get posted, although we do have very little theatre coverage and some change might be nice. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Yeah, tricky one. Whilst "Longest Broadway Show" is a thing, as Andrew says, it's been running since 1986 in London (apart from a Covid break) with over twice as many performances than the Boradway version. However, even that is not going to break any West End show records either because of The Mousetrap, and at least two other West End shows have more performances than the target article. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per Andrew. This is like sports retirements. As people sometimes go out of retirement, it’s not unlikely that the musical will be staged again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Once a Broadway production closes, it's done for good and it won't have another "run". There are revival performances but they usually happen in single years and not for prolonged periods of time. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, when an “original run” ends, any future revival won’t be “original” any more. However, Broadway theatre doesn’t really indicate that revivals are rare and short-lived (Chicago is a proof for that). So, if the musical with the second-longest original run in history had a long revival, it’s normal to expect the one with the longest run to get it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose this pop culture trivia. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is the problem with posting pop culture on ITN? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support important, well-known record; per ITN guidelines, a story in the news deemed significant by ITN users. One orange tag, but otherwise article appears in reasonable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Top theatre news along with a record for a classic, good to cover news beyond the usual drab. Should post this before it becomes stale. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting record, but more trivia than anything else. And we will assuredly see performances of this musical in the future, "revivals" or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Jamal

 * Oppose. As said in nom comment, this article is not ready for the main page. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. sourced everything in awards and compilations to the best of my abilities. i assessed everything in discography and it looks good to me. should be good to go. Ayyydoc (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Ayyydoc. Jusdafax (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many cn tags. And an undersourced discography section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Supportthanks for the expansion of Cielquiparle Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not so much expansion, but all the citation needed tags have been resolved now. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Including the discography section. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - in admiration for the added sources --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Saikazaki bombing

 * Oppose on article quality. The main article needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when article is improved. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, especially considering what happened with Abe last year. Proposed altblurb. The Kip (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the article at "bombing" given that it was only a smoke bomb? There are sources calling it an assassination attempt, but I'm not seeing "bombing" being used in the same manner. --M asem (t) 00:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thwarted plot. Ultimately impacts are limited here. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Past precedent dictates failed assassinations attempts aren’t for ITN. (Iraq PM failed attempt ITN nomination…closed directly on the grounds that it was a failed attempt & Former Brazilian President failed attempt ITN nomination. with were both closed and not posted. Absolutely no reason to post this to ITN based on those previous discussions.) Elijahandskip (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article is bare bones at the moment, so we're waiting on expansion. As far as significance, if it was a real bomb, then I think it meets our criteria of significance considering the country and weapon of choice; but if it was a fake bomb, then oppose altogether. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that would go against precedent though. If ITN was only going to accept “crazy” style assassination attempts, then what would be classified crazy? A drone strike isn’t “crazy” enough to be a significant assassination attempt, so why would a pipe bomb? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "precedent" at ITN. The closest thing to that is ITNR, which is not precedent but the result of consensus from rigorous discussion. Every non-ITNR candidate is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems counter-productive though. ITN for attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister had four comments (only) and all directly about failed assassination attempts not being posted on ITN before it was SNOW closed. If precedent doesn’t matter, then that discussion (as well as the linked above discussion for former Brazil president attempted assassination ITN) mean nothing and are basically defunct. Obviously neither would be posted since they aren’t news anymore, but precedent basically closed them, so saying ITN doesn’t have precedent is false. Maybe an RfC discussion for ITNR might be best for this type of situation since there are two previous attempted assassinations that were not posted to ITN (one directly closed on grounds that it failed). Elijahandskip (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The comparision with the Rushdie stabbing is unjustified, he was seriously injured and the incident was the culmination of a long running, high profile controversy. I do not have a strong opinion on this incident, but no one appears to have been seriously injured including the PM, so the significance of this is questionable. Gotitbro (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Article is a bit short for my tastes. Not quite there for this type of topic. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a lack of importance. No-one was seriously injured & there's very little info about the suspect & the possible motives. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is a little short, and lacks information on things such as details on the would-be killer. An attempt on the life of any world leader, IMO, is notable, successful or not. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Failed attempt, just one bystander with minor injuries - lacks significance.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the story here is that there is no story here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ‘Twas a smoke bomb. The bodyguard did a great job blocking, kicking it away, shielding and evacuating his protected. Jehochman Talk 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Dadeville shooting

 * All I'll say off the bat is that it needs considerable expansion. It's too short at present to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability and quality yet another routine shooting in the United States. And it is (very) well known what the majority opinion of the editors is on this type of nominations. Again: just because it is in the news, does not mean that it has to be in "In the news". _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should rename In The News to The list of abritraily selected news events that we feature on the main page based on the whims of 20 to 30 Wikipedia editors who vote emotionally and dramawhore themselves out to each other like the world's biggest orgy. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 22:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it is what it is. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A twenty– to thirty-participant orgy cannot fairly be characterised as the world's biggest, fyi. I feel like there's a discussion elsewhere on this page where most editors agree with your perspective on the subjectivity of the ITN criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * discussion promoted, mainly, by U.S. editors when they see that Americancentrism is endangered. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 03:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once improved - A shooting that causes 16 deaths is far from routine, even in the U.S. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 22:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Such a shooting is far from routine, but this isn't a shooting that caused 16 deaths. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:FDC4:8D69:16EF:5484 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-read the blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consensus is that US mass shootings are provincial unless otherwise notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Common crime in the US, does not appear to have to do with terrorism or the like. Also, given that there have been >150 mass shootings (more than 4 people wounded) in the US, this is just another example of why gun control is needed in the US. --M asem (t) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mass shootings are far too common in the US. If we are going to start posting these w/o setting a high bar, ITN will quickly become just a catalogue of the ongoing firearms related mayhem in the US. Will generally support if there are circumstances which make the event stand out from most of the other mass shootings. Examples, double digit fatalities, terrorism etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A stub with little hope of expansion right now as the police are yet to say anything about suspects or motivation for the attack. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub + not particularly notable as unfortunately, these shootings are common nowadays. The Kip (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. About a thousand murders happen every day. They are generally not notable. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably doesnt even pass NEVENT. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Dubai apartment fire

 * Support pending improvements - there's very little actual information on the fire. Also, the response section needs greater clarity and sourcing, and the aftermath section should paradoxically probably be integrated into the background section, since all info contained in there are about prior events. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in the process of rewriting and expanding the aftermath section. I will move it up to the background section shortly. Kurtis (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after improvement, if this can make it past the Council of No. Fires in the UAE are not typical, and this is the latest of four such articles in that category.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, fires in the UAE are actually quite common. Check out this list of fires involving high-rise building façades and pay particularly close attention to their prevalence in Emirati cities like Dubai or Sharjah. Kurtis (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A tragic event but far below the level of notability needed for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose, Per above, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Atique Ahmed

 * Oppose A number of uncited statements, some of which may have BLP issues (about still living people, not just the subject). Not suitable for the Main Page at this point. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - given the circumstances of his death, I think this should maybe be blurbed (especially considering this is receiving international coverage). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Black Kite. Oppose blurb on notability, it's an interesting story but he wasn't the sort of figure that would merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * RD Oppose until quality issues are fixed per Black Kite and The Kip, though Strong Oppose any sort of blurb for both the previously noted quality issues and notability issues. I only learned of this man through his death, which kind of slices any blurb argument in half, imo. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've read the requirements for a death blurb backwards. They say, and I quote, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. 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.  An assassination is generally considered the kind of death that merits additional commentary as being notable on its own, as opposed to dying from natural causes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Before voting on whether or not to blurb, please take heed of 's comment above, copied from ITNRD; assassinations and public shootings, particularly those of public figures, almost certainly rise to the standard of being a blurbworthy event. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb He was really a strictly local politician, turned into a strictly local gangster. And in the world of criminality death is not something exceptional. Lack of general notiblity. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Local politician from one part of the country. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There is already strong consensus against blurbing. Focus on the RD criteria instead. Curbon7 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, article quality has sufficiently expanded since. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 06:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted RD. As per Knightofthewords, quality seems ok now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we make the link to the page be Atiq Ahmed instead of the now-redirect page, Atique Ahmed? Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's fixed! Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irma Blank

 * Support Article is good enough for RD, with enough citations and a long enough article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mufti Abdul Shakoor

 * Oppose. Currently a stub. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub and needs expansion to go onto ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only 132 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Corach Rambler wins Grand National

 * Conditional Support - unfortunately, the article, as with many ITN/R competitions mostly consists of a table wall (plus some background). There's nothing about the actual race itself aside from the lead. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality. Article lacks thorough description of race. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support.--СтасС (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality due to lack of prose. Will flip vote when addressed. The Kip (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient prose to post this now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Sudan clashes

 * support rsf have at least one airport under control, possibly the capital. Rsf is more popular against the junta.49.205.151.137 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * extreme support - it is probably even more than a coup attempt at this point Braganza (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is sufficiently referenced and the even is important inasmuch as this looks like a civil war/coup attempt. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support though recommend trying to improve the reading flow on the events, and nixxing the flags in the reactions section. --M asem (t) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced. Length is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Extreme wait seems to be an ongoing situation. We have to wait and see how it turns out, and if it is a simple confrontations or something worse (like a possible failed or successful coup d'état). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - even if the coup fails, its still pretty notable. Also, the article is in surprisingly good shape for such a recent article (though as @Masem pointed out, the events section probably needs to be modified for greater readability.
 * - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per Alsor. Situation is still developing. I think waiting to assess the situation would be prudent. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait seems more appropriate. There is a pending move discussion ongoing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It happened. It's notable. The article is ready. If it ends up becoming something more than a single confrontation, then we can move it to ongoing after it falls off ITN. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The blurb is not really descriptive. Both sides seem to claim a lot according to BBC, so I'd prefer to wait to be able to have a more descriptive blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support important event with the article in pretty good shape for an ongoing conflict. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support even if it failed an attempted coup would still be significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Confused and competing claims so it's not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't get you. Is the article not reliable or what? There is a full on war right now. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Information is still coming in and much of it disputed. We know there is conflict, but many of the details are still murky. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would ongoing fit better then, in your opinion? DecafPotato (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the bold linked article now that this has been posted, the first thing I read is that this is "Part of the Sudanese transition to democracy". That's such obvious BS that one doesn't need go any further.  Essentially, mayhem in Sudan is like shootings in the US and we already have it listed as a war in the list of ongoing armed conflicts.  That entry has about 400,000 deaths since 2008 and so these latest skirmishes are just a drop in the ocean.  They just seem to be attracting attention because they are happening in the capital.  No doubt someone will claim that this "democracy" has resulted in an "election" and we'll be forced to run that too. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow I'm not remotely surprised that you can't see how this represents a significant uptick in the conflict. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The situation has escalated and clashes have spread throughout the country . No reason to wait with posting at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support considerable escalation in the last 24h; article is acceptable enough and can only improve w additional exposure Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. Article looks decent, but I have not examined it in great detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to significance and likelihood to stay in the news. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not sure what's murky about this - military units attacking the government with fighter jets is absolutely ITN. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - notable enough, has extensive media cover with information becoming more reliable by the hour. The article is well written and sources
 * FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * article has been moved to 2023 Sudan clashes, could you (or anyone else) fix the link? Thanks, ansh. 666 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done - it's been moved again since this comment, to 2023 Sudanese clashes, so that's the current link target. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I're updated the blurb with the death toll and made it less about the blow-by-blow details of the fighting: "In Sudan, at least 97 people die in clashes between rival factions of the military regime."  Sandstein   08:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ford launches hands-free driving on UK motorways

 * Oppose Like the malaria vaccine below, approval of an established technology by one country (and here, specifically only on some parts of that country) is not really an ITN featured item. --M asem (t) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Blurb lacks car. RAN1 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, hands-free driving vehicles is missing, and the bolded article is History of self-driving cars. RAN1 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose fairly trivial. The Kip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see.--СтасС (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work It's in the news but the target article hasn't been updated. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support - not a very riveting story, but its in the news. Target article has not been updated however.
 * - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really relevant. There are many issues that are "in the news", but we cannot include all "In the news" per se. Good faith nomination, of course _-_Alsor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * but not with the first news that comes before our eyes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "First European country" is an arbitrary distinction and not ITN worthy. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to mention this new legislation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ITN worthy. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't see any noteworthy advancement in self-driving technology here. This is just approving another safety system Ford has implemented that makes sure the driver's eyes are on the road, in contrast to the traditional method of checking if the driver is attentative by keeping their hands on the wheel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ghana becomes first country to approve Oxford malaria vaccine R21/Matrix-M

 * Oppose One nation approving a vaccine is not really ITN worthy. --M asem (t) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to change my !vote on this, though I have added an altblurb that is towards my reasoning. That is, when I look back at the news about this, I don't see a really good point where the vaccine clearly became *the* candidate for use; it was shown to meet WHO's requirement in 2021, and had successful human testing in 2022, but never a point that marked it as ready to be used to the public. Its clear from other articles that Ghana must have seen the last phase 3 tests (yet to be publicly published) and opted to go with it; WHO is also looking into it but how soon that is, is not clear. So this seems like a key point. We're clearly not going to post when other countries approve it for use (though maybe consider the WHO's approval). --M asem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One could argue that a malaria vaccine in itself is newsworthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the vaccine yes (although Masem has not questioned this), its approval by a specific country no. It is purely a bureaucratic formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I ain't questionin' that anybody was questionin' anything, just pointin' out. Cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mid Support - sure you can dismiss this as "just one nation," but I don't think folks in the first-world are aware of how crippling malaria is in the tropics. We're talking about what is the sixth most fatal cause of death in most low-income countries, a scourge that exterminates half a million people annually, many of whom (80%) are children, one that devastates these countries financially. This vaccine developed by Oxford is the most efficient malaria vaccine to be developed, primarily in that is able to combat the disease well before its destructive symptoms raise their ugly heads. Even if it's just "one country," this is still likely the start of a major medical miracle. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The development of the vaccine would have been the ITN item, not approval by one country, on that same reasoning - its what the vaccine means to the part of the world suffering from malaria. M asem (t) 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, it has to start somewhere. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "has to start somewhere" was the successful creation and human trials of the vaccine. M asem (t) 23:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No question there. But if nobody chose to actually use the vaccine then we would have probably never known much about it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. If Ghana is Malaria free, we can talk about it, but that doesn't seem possible with this vaccine according to the articleParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if the article's improved per Knightoftheswords. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work The topic is more significant than most of the stuff posted at ITN but the target article is quite broad and has some issues including orange cleanup tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support an effective malaria vaccine has been a major international goal for a long time and it's great to see progress on it. Also the vaccine being approved for use is probably the most significant stage of it's development so it's not like there will be a better time than now. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. Pluswhich, a working malaria vaccine should be major medical news. What more is it going to take? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Masem. In fact, I felt quite compelled to oppose per their original comment as well, but have also felt swayed by the amendment. This vaccine is quite significant, so I think it deserves a little extra ITN recognition at checkpoints that we would not post for other vaccines. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A malaria vaccine with 77% efficacy (WHO goal was 75%) being approved for use by a national regulator for the first time is absolutely significant for posting. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mark Sheehan

 * Oppose as it is "painfully short". At only 157 words, I think this can be considered a stub. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ed Koren

 * Oppose. Woefully unsourced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now support due to improved sourcing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve cited the body of the article. The books just have to be cited now. Thriley (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have finished up the sourcing of the books, so this article should be good to go. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article lead states that his work included "children's books and political cartoons" but this is not described further in the article body. What types of political cartoons or views did Koren espouse?  Spencer T• C 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer I've clarified this further in the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still think the depth could use work (no mention of children's books in the body of the article, which is also mentioned in the lede). Strike weak oppose but don't think this is quite ready for posting.  Spencer T• C 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Koren is known as a cartoonist first and foremost. I don’t think minor work he did should hold up this nomination. He literally made tens of thousands of illustrations in his lifetime. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer It appears that the children's books part of the lead has been removed, so I don't think that there needs to be a whole lot in there, but I can try. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elisabeth Kopp

 * Support Article is now well-sourced, addressing Vacant0‘s concern, and it has sufficient content. 24.105.189.251 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine and is well-cited. Ollieisanerd (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support article looks good. But I would like to see more about her political work, as much of the section on her career talks about the investigation of her husband and her resignation. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks RD ready. Good work.
 * Support I'm convinced. Grimes2 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   12:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) JUICE mission launch

 * Support, important mission with a mediocre article. Artem.G (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a fan of space-related things, major research mission to an interesting region of the Solar System that launched in the early afternoon (CEST) :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R. Article is of decent quality. Space is indeed fucking juicy. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 17:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Under which qualification is this ITN/R?  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I had to go back and read and stand corrected. For missions like this, they are ITN/R when they arrive, not launch, apparently. That said, it won't arrive at Jupiter for 8 years, and won't attain orbit at Ganymede until 3 after that, so I think it is also okay to post the launch as a regular nomination. I've fixed the nomination. Thanks for pointing that out! Kenmelken (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is decent. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Notability and quality is here. I will say though, it would be nice if the blurb noted the goal/significance of the mission though. No ideas come to mind at the moment, but just my two cents. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The significance lies in the studying of astral bodies that most likely hold some kinds of bodies of water beneath their surfaces, and could potentially harbour life. Umm, right, ahem, The European Space Agency launches the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, to study bodies of water on three Galilean moons. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks decent enough for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and I'd also support a slightly-expanded blurb. The article is in good shape, and it's a particularly notable launch. Plus, I can't wait to see what JUICE has to say in 15753 years. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work The history section is orange-tagged and talks about the probe's construction being in the future. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan

 * Support - Fellas, it's In The News. This is tensions rising in a geopolitical hotspot. @Knightoftheswords281 makes good points, this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support (edit: pending article expansion since at this stage, its mostly just background) - I was actually considering making an article about this. Appears to pass WP:NEVENTS with wide-spread news coverage. In other words, it has its own article, so it should be good (edit, adding blurb). - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 11:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We did not post the noise around Pelosi's visit. This does not seem to be any different. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. I also disagree with that not being posted. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a point of observation not argument (with the latter being that it is mere noise). And precedents exist, when similar things are up for nom again and again we need to fall back on past consensus unless something substantially different is shown or a new point is put forward (OTHERSTUFF does not really apply here). Gotitbro (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, these have been going on several days before this, and it has only generated noise and concern on international conflict levels. Second, the blurb goes into OR trying to connect the exercise with the visit to the US (even if Occum's Razor applies) --M asem (t) 13:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies primarily on what secondary sources state. It's not original research if we have multiple WP:RS sources that interpret such a connection between the two. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose noise, as always. So it's not noticeable enough, whether it's due to the visit of a politician from the United States or from France. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just military exercises and nothing more for now. I’d re-consider my vote in case this turns into invasion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:, : If it's "just noise", then shouldn't it be nominated for deletion as non-notable? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The info likely fits under an existing article on China-Taiwan relations, but as a standalone article, I agree that NEVENT is not met yet. M asem (t) 15:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion for merger at Talk:Cross-Strait relations. This discussion seems to indicate that there's not much confidence in the event's notability. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - an obvious escalation of tensions that has been bubbling for several months. If there was an invasion, it would be straight into ongoing. I don't think it's necessary nor (and this is what ITN is for) informative to remain quiet on that front until some hypothetical war. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not out of the ordinary, same thing when Pelosi visited (our article here). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More sabre rattling. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons that I opposed the Pelosi one. Tough-guy posturing by China, nothing substantial. Curbon7 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - escalation of tensions. Article looks good enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Predictable sabre rattling. No different than when Pelosi visited. Teemu08 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "China's final warning" strikes once again, not to mention the drills are basically over now. DecafPotato (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Conventional dick rattling. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Above, plus, we don't post about such exercises, so come back when World War 3 starts. Editor 5426387 (Talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7, does this count?! - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 03:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, it happened! The Kip (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This certainly deserves a nomination here. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 ahem! You have a deal to follow through on. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like an issue for the fine print. "Per above" is there, but there's more to it as well. DecafPotato (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – In response, Taiwan also held some drills to prepare for any kind of disaster.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was just thinking back to when we were all calling Russia's massing of troops on the Ukrainian border "saber-rattling" and "dick-rattling" and all that stuff. I think it was one or two days before the invasion. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And we rightfully chose to not post, deferring until said invasion. The Russian force elevation to where it became for the invasion ultimately stands a small footnote in the conflict. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also a bit different - in the days before the Ukraine invasion, the US President was literally announcing that Russia would invade, with details about the timeframe, and troop movements. This isn't at all similar.
 * Probably should be closed, does not have support for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per DecafPotato Hungry403 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - routine escalation - we are likely still years away from the Chinese invasion. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thubten Zopa Rinpoche

 * Posted Stephen 03:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Judith Miller (antiques expert)

 * Oppose. Large portions are unsourced. The death was cited to an unreliable tabloid, but I've replaced it with the BBC source listed above. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is small and there are many CN tags still left. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah

 *  Oppose Article has not been properly updated (still in present tense, no mention of death). Furthermore, even if that were done, there's several cn tags that need resolving.  It's also fantastically incomplete.  For someone who served as a major political leader of his country, there are entire years of his premiership with no coverage at all.  The article needs a LOT of work to be main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Article would barely be acceptable for RD at the current state. Way too short, not notable, and horrible quality for a blurb mention. Weak weak support RD. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not notable" is a clearly not true. I can't imagine that a head-of-government of a sovereign state would not have been written about extensively by reliable sources, at least in the country he led.  I would imagine that Kuwaiti newspapers probably wrote something substantial about him nearly every day of his premiership.  So yes, he's clearly notable.  The article doesn't really cite any of those sources as yet, but notability has nothing to do with the writing in the article.  It only attaches to the subject of the article, and the prime minister of a sovereign state will easily have been written about extensively, if nothing else, by writers based in that country.  That doesn't mean his death qualifies for a blurb; blurbs are only necessary if the death needs further explanation. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. 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. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality, blurb on notability Article's in a dreadful state and in my opinion he doesn't meet the notability bar for a blurb anyways. The Kip (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The monarch still retains significant power in Kuwait, to blurb a PM we would need to show an outsized impact of the position here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - think its good enough for RD already though. But yes, the PM in Kuwait is not in charge of much, so this wouldnt come close to blurb-worthy on the "this person is very important" scale, even if that were the scale we consistently used. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982 Talk -  22:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The PM of Kuwait is a figure with little real executive power, so I don't think he is ITNR-worthy. The current content seems totally sourced, but holding office for eight years I think is insufficient. It needs to be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment states that the former prime minister's son, Mubarak Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, died, not the prime minister. I've opened a discussion on their talk page for clarification, but in the meantime, I'm not quite sure if Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah or his son died.  Tails   Wx  01:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Quant

 * Weak support: Having taken a quick look at the article, I would say the "Fashion career" section could be written in an even more neutral way, while the "Bibliography" needs some more links. Plus, should we turn the "Trivia" section into a "Legacy and impact" one? But apart from these notes, she definitely deserves a spot. Oltrepier (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems adequately sourced and neutral. I've removed the trivia section as unneeded, added citations to the biblio, and toned down the career section. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Good prose, well sourced. Thanks for sparing me trivia, Valereee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. No problems with this article. Bibliography cleaned up. Seth Whales   talk  07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rabey Hasani Nadwi

 * This needs a lot of work. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, all sourcing issues are now resolved; though expansion work may be helpful as well! Tails   Wx  13:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have tried to update the article but a lot still remains that I might do later in the night. As the article stands now, it is ready to be posted imo. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs additional depth regarding his scholarly contributions: all that is specified in the article is that he had some kind of contributions to "Arabic language and literature" and that he "guided the Muslim community towards using the media in a better way".  Spencer T• C 17:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Spencer, I have made some addition subject to this. I agree this is not everything but it suffices for an average reader. Thanks. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Improved and although the article would benefit from additional detail, it meets minimum standards for ITN.  Spencer T• C 03:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready now, indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can some admin post this? Last RD was updated on 15. This one should get its due now. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyclone Ilsa

 * Wait This could turn out to be a very violent storm, but for now we haven't seen any of that yet. Ping me when this changes. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 05:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here, ping me too as well when it gets stronger. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 05:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sparsely populated area around landfall site where impact is likely to be minimal as a result of said lack of population. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 10:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're ignoring regional, rural and remote areas? Well, A: it will be violent and have a lot of impact, B: it will be the most powerful in 14 years and C: yes even if most of the towns it will hit are small and in the outback (except some larger ones like Broome and Port Hedland), it will. Still affect a lot of people because it's spanning at least 700km across the northwestern coast and will have an impact on weather elsewhere in Australia as well as in Indonesia and East Timor, plus maybe other countries (I'm not saying it will be a cyclone in all these regions, but it will cause wind and rain even where I am in New South Wales, on the east coast). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A. It was violent but has weakened now, and the impact part is WP:CRYSTAL. Wait for reliable sources to demonstrate that there is a widespread severe impact warranting posting.
 * B. ITN doesn't look at the power of a storm, we are focused solely on impact; the standard is to send things like that over to DYK. It also isn't powerful anymore. Speaking from experience, there is a strong inclinicity to not post things like weather records and storm power here on the grounds of climate change.
 * C. We don't focus on how many people are "affected". Anyone getting rainfall or slightly increased winds is "affected". We focus on damage and deaths here because those can easily display how severe a storm was. Sadly many weather events affect a lot of people, but we can't post them all or else there would be hundreds of blurb a year. That's why we settle on things like damage and deaths. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We focus on damage and deaths here – Is there a policy or guideline that supports this? If not, then it's just something that a few editors made up and are attempting to enforce on others. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been practiced at ITN for years and is the reason most experienced weather editors will not nominate anything without significant damage or deaths. Anyone who has been here remembers how storms used to get opposed for higher and higher death tolls simply due to the frequency that was experienced. The compromise was essentially to quit nominating or supporting run of the mill storms at ITN (ie anything that doesn't satisfy WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). While Cat 5s are more rare, there haven't been any reported fatalities and the damage is normal for a tropical cyclone. ITN regulars have also made it very clear in the past that weather records are a no go topic and that's why I won't bring one here no matter what it is. The issue with affected is the vagueness of the term and that's pretty much why it isn't blurbable; millions could be affected simply by getting 1 inch of rain while overall it's not very impactful while others could be drenched by multiple feet of rain. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is clear on this. "Regulars" of a certain area don't have any additional authority over it, and discussions should be based on policy. There is no WP:DEATHTOLL because that metric has nothing to do with policy or determining whether something is notable/encyclopedic. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This nomination is premature. Cyclone hasn't even made landfall, and there will likely be low or no deaths. In the unlikely event there are a significant amount of deaths or it breaks some sort of windspeed record or other type of record, I will support. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support upon landfall, there is no WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS and my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many storms get their own articles but shouldn't be posted here, otherwise we would be flooding ITN with cyclone stories. Some years have like 60-80 articles for storms. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hurricane Noah, @Onegreatjoke, well frankly I believe that we really ought to be lessening the "standards" for what gets posted to ITN since said "standards" are barely defined and just lead to a lot of excess bickering and nonsensical drama and debate. I believe that if an article is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be featured in ITN, and if you disagree if an item on ITN is notable enough to be included, then you know where to go. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean yeah, I do agree that ITN should lessen its standards a bit (especially for sports records there's no need for ITN to have their standards so ridiculously high for it) but, just because a cyclone gets its own article doesn't automatically mean it should be on ITN imo. Also, just because I don't believe an article should be on ITN does not mean I believe that the article should be deleted outright. Article creation and ITN nominations have different standards so even though i'm opposing the nom i'm not "going to go where I know to go". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The issue here isn't that our standards for ITN are too high. It's that they're artificial and have no basis in P&G, meanwhile WP:NEVENTS remains obscenely unenforced. Compare recent deaths; thousands of deaths happen every day, but recent deaths gets along just fine. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue arises on the criterion for inclusion on ITN. What would make, this cyclone, apt for being posted? As we all know, that question is the principal reason for ITN's issues regarding posting, civility, etc. At this point, I think (and this is something that @GreatCaesarsGhost called for before) it would frankly be best remove all discussion of "significance" on ITN and endorse a posting philosophy of just assessing a story's merit based of quality. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was also called for at the village pump recently, where there was a fairly strong consensus that the current haphazardly applied standards are not acceptable, but the discussion went stale before any alternative could be implemented. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, you're right. When we decide to nominate and post something, everything comes down to opinion. When knights said "my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN." that's his opinion and when I say "I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone" that's my opinion. When I thought about that for a minute I came to realize just how pretty much EVERYTHING with ITN nominations is strictly opinion based. There is practically not a SINGLE guideline followed ever. Even some of the """principles""" mentioned on the general criteria are literally never used and if they are, they're not defined ever.
 * "The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not?
 * "The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?)" Tell me a single instance when someone bases an argument around this.
 * "The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?)" Aside from never seeing this used as argument, how do we define?? What is considered frequent enough?? If only one news source is updating it frequently is that good enough??
 * "The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?)" Also have never seen this used.
 * And then I consider some of the "frowned upon" reasons
 * "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful.","arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." Is listed as unhelpful yet i'd argue is ignored often. As much as some American-centric nominations can be annoying, just look at the amount of people in the indictment of trump nomination going "This is just American-centric so i'm opposing on that" littered throughout when that's supposedly considered "frowned upon".
 * "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important." Yes, that can be true. BUT, didn't the guidelines literally list THREE """principles""" directly related to this?!?!?
 * Then I com back to this nomination and I have to wonder, what truly makes a cyclone good to post on the main page? Do we strictly follow deaths and damages to see if this cyclone can be posted or do we follow the fact that this cyclone is not only a category 5 (in Australian scale) but the strongest cyclone to strike landfall in Australia in 14 years as good enough? When you think about it, whether we consider ITN nominations fit for the main page or not comes SOLELY to opinion. Even the guidelines understand this stating "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." and "Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance". Yet, is that a good thing or should there be actual set in stone minimums that determine if a nomination is good enough? You used WP:NEVENT as a justification for your support. Yet, that isn't even mentioned in the guidelines. I have seen multiple people use NEVENT to determine their support or oppose. Yet, that isn't even a ITN guideline and is technically nothing but opinion.
 * Sorry for the long rant, I just had a random epiphany and just wanted to ramble. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is basically the thought process that I went through while reading discussions about ITN over the last few months. The conclusion I've come to is that if "significance" is arbitrary (and if counting significance !votes when closing is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS), then the decision rests entirely on quality. So it basically comes down to this: if it has an article, then it presumably meets WP:NEVENTS and therefore is "notable", which is the policy-based standard against which we measure articles. If it doesn't meet WP:NEVENTS, then it should be nominated for deletion, which naturally disqualifies it from ITN in the process.We know that such a system works, because recent deaths—which is handled on this exact same page—has been doing it for years. I'd argue that whoever closes this discussion should disregard (or at least give lower weight to) any !vote that's based solely on an editor's personal opinion about significance unless there's a policy-based objection. This is the standard that's used everywhere else on Wikipedia. Just not on ITN blurbs for some reason, even though we have policies and guidelines like WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROJPAGE that explicitly discourage different corners of Wikipedia from coming up with their own processes that diverge from or contradict sitewide processes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what matters is that we REALLY need some solid guidelines. I've seen votes based off of personal opinion be disregarded in a system which is ENTIRELY based off of personal opinion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another thing. The guidelines states that
 * "There is consensus to post the event."
 * is a solid guideline. Yet, what defines consensus? I've seen consensuses either being written off as a no consensus or the vote is given to the complete opposite of the consensus. So what's the definition of consensus here? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is defined at WP:CONSENSUS. Applying any other definition is inappropriate and becomes a conduct issue when done repeatedly. I agree that the solution is revisiting ITN guidelines, which it's worth noting are not actually WP:Guidelines as Wikipedia defines them, giving further evidence of the fact that they haven't been given proper scrutiny. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not? – The same way we define the length and quality of any article: weighing it against some requirements like containing all due and encyclopedic published information, having references, not being a stub, etc. DecafPotato (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone. Sure, the strongest cyclone in 14 years but it's still a cyclone that's hitting a rural area. Plus, saying "if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN" as that would mean that every single cyclone with an article would get posted to ITN and we'd be having like 60 storms in the main page every year.Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose because I had a random-a** epiphany. Am currently neutral at the moment. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the cyclone's impacts become clearer. Right now, the models point more to a sparsely populated area like Noah stated, but the cyclone has yet to make landfall and hasn't made much impact as of now, so wait until it makes landfall. If it doesn't do much, I'll oppose, but for now, wait! Tails   Wx  13:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have reports on the impacts of the storm to assess. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support assuming it meets WP:NEVENTS. Length and sourcing are sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Waiting to see what the real effect of the storm is and if it causes a considerable number of casualties. Something "worst in a decade" should not have a direct ticket in ITN per se. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We had the worst ever (in terms of intensity and $ of damage), in Canada last year (Hurricane Fiona), and it still couldn't get through ITN for near a week after it made it's 3rd landfall (perhaps if it had hit Maine rather than Puerto Rico ...). So the standard seems to be no rush. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This Australian person says no. The storm had limited impact as it hit the coastline, and quickly degraded after doing so. It did apparently create some sort of wind speed record, of 288 km/h, but this hasn't been well reported, as what kind of a record it is. (Region? Country? World?) If something special comes of that, maybe we can report it another way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the cyclone has made landfall. It will also reach the Northern Territory as a category three (my guess is that in a matter of days it will also hit Far North Queensland). Pinging users:, , , , , , , , . See here: https://www.9news.com.au/national/tropical-cyclone-ilsa-western-australia-map-storm-weather-news-in-pictures/4a0b40bf-4303-4054-b9be-2ffccb3a6daf Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The second part isn't accurate. It's forecast to be a tropical low before it even crosses the border into the NT. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See from the BOM which depicts it being a tropical low well before the northern territory. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. But it "still incredibly dangerous" according to the BOM. Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/still-incredibly-dangerous:-tropical-cyclone-ilsa/102221816 Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately danger is inherent with tropical cyclones and other weather events. That isn't really something we can post here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also,, it has broken a speed record: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/live-updates-tropical-cyclone-ilsa-hits-western-australia/102217818 Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Said record was just for that station at Bedout Island. Not very significant in the long run. It would be different if it was the strongest winds recorded in Australia or something of that nature. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think the same. For now. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait leaning oppose – DYK material for sure, but in terms of what ITN looks for this isn't there as things stand. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for the same reason I opposed the NZ one. This is DYK caliber material. ITN generally is (rightfully so) focused on impact. Perhaps this cyclone makes a large impact, but we don't know this yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. The impacts are not yet fully known – Ilsa is still churning over Western Australia as of this writing. And to be honest, I am still unsure if Ilsa's impacts would be ITN-worthy (especially because it impacted a sparsely populated area), though it was a a notable and violent tropical cyclone (that's for sure). Vida0007 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cyclone is basically dispersed, no deaths and while a few mill AU$ in damage, its the same as a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear it. --M asem (t) 14:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Craig Breen

 * Comment there's a lot of sourcing work to contend with! Tails   Wx  14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Seems most if not all sourcing issues have been addressed, no remaining CN tags. The Kip (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Added a bunch of sources, which seems the unsourced issues have been addressed. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to go now. A huge loss to motorsport, especially to rallying. Vida0007 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go. Improved and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tamilla Nasirova

 * Support Article is short, but I think meets the bare minimum of holisticity with the second paragraph. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree. This article is just a bit too short for my liking, it's two paragraphs! This needs to be cleaned up before we can continue with it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , what major details do you think are missing? What part needs clean up? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'short' was the wrong word. I feel it's too condensed, though. On my computer, I can see the top of the page, and at the bottom are the references, which just screams 'STUB!' to me, even though I know it isn't. Maybe an infobox would be nice, and we could split some of the sections up. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Tibisay Lucena

 * Oppose Early life and education/Career sections are both entirely unsourced, and the article itself is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While I see the issue with referencing and could be solved, I don't understand how at its current size the article can be considered a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was (at the time of my !vote) marked as a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No it was not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added references, as well as translated the Career section from Spanish. The article now includes content regarding her position as minister. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. No referencing issues. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks RD ready now.BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The intro states that "She was first elected to this post (president of the National Electoral Council) in 2006, and was reelected in 2009 for the 2009-2013 period." but the career section lacks info on her work during these years in such a high-profile position. Please expand. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have expanded content regarding the 2006, 2013 and 2018 elections. Is the section better? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the section further, adding information about the 2017 Constituent Assembly election. I'm tagging the headline as ready, per the other comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I wasn't able to help much here. I was doing spot checks and fixes and suddenly had to go offline. There is a {failed verification} tag that still needs to be fixed. PFHLai (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Louis Gaskin

 * Support I've fixed up some of the tensing issues as well as some minor MOS corrections, but this article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems well cited for its size. Rockstone, you should've used the word "executed" instead of "killed". CR-1-AB (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Killing is an accurate description of the State's actions. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're against the death penalty? CR-1-AB (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even if I weren't, "killing" is an accurate description. I'd call it state sanctioned murder, but that is inflammatory. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last time I said my brutally honest opinion, I was reported to admins, so I'm not gonna say anything. CR-1-AB (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because killing is very clearly a WP:NPOV violation. Executed is a perfectly fine legal and neutral term. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 02:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not violate neutral point of view at all. A killing is exactly what the state did. A killing is defined as causing the death of something. That's what happened here. The state's actions caused the death of another person. Killing is appropriate language. Calling it a murder (which I believe it was) would violate NPOV, because by definition, a murder must be unjust and unlawful. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to label it killing if this were yet another instance of Florida and/or certain other states sending yet another innocent man to his death, but in this instance it's a bit too strong for what seems like an open and shut case. The Kip (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A killing isn't the same as a murder (and although I think it is murder, that's not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes). It is, however, a fact that the state killed someone, by forcing them onto a gurney and injecting poison into their veins. Whether it was a justified killing or not, it still was a killing. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Killing" is a rather generic term, and can be applied to a wide range of situations. In order to differentiate the different type of killings, there are different words - from felling (in the case of killing trees for their wood) to manslaughter (in the case of accidental killings). This specific killing is, in your own words, a "state-sanctioned murder". However, saying all of that every time we talk about it is inefficient, and simply calling it a killing is too generic. Luckily, there just so happens to be a perfect word to cover the "sanctioned murder" type of killing - that word is "execution". Ocean1cbanana (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready The article is not nearly ready. For these kinds of articles, we don't need his biography to be super in-depth, as that isn't really the focus, but there isn't anything at all about his biography. The description of the murders is also light, as the article doesn't even state where they occurred, and the article is unclear about whether he burgled the first house or not (the article states towards the end that stolen property was retrieved, but the description of the crime itself makes it seem like he remained outside the entire time). Curbon7 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Sawada

 * Support Article is fine, and good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Career statistic box is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a source, but I will admit I'm not sure why one would be needed considering the External links section contains links to five different sources for career statistics. Something I will bring up with the WikiProject. —  Ghost River  23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keshub Mahindra

 * Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982 Talk 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape for ITN/RD. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article lacks information about the subject's business career. It is unclear what industries Mahindra Group is even involved in based on the article.  Spencer T• C 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting. Edits are done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and sourcing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Pazigyi massacre

 * Support pending article improvements, as there isn't enough about the actual contents of the massacre in my opinion (most of the article is just background information). However, an event with this many casualties caused by the country's own military is certainly notable. DecafPotato (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be notable and sourcing is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs work but is ok for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article looks minimally sufficient for posting but would benefit from further improvements as the story unfolds and more information becomes available.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support At the point I am reading it now, it looks sufficient (though improvement and expansion, as always is quite invited), but I think it is main-page ready. Of note, the blurb above doesn't reflect what is written in the article, though.  The article only says "at least 100" not 120.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This article might need some expansion, but this is also shocking - this attack has a abnormally very high death toll and also the deadliest since the coup. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Shocking. Needs further expansion but is sufficient. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The article is underwhelming - mostly background and reactions - but does meet our minimum requirements. The incident is getting media attention and the death toll is unusually high, though I question why we're highlighting one air raid over the wider Myanmar civil war, which has killed thousands. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an altblurb, which I think provides a better explanation of the situation and has more relevant links. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's because the civil war was never blurbed nor put on ongoing and I doubt it could realistically be placed there now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above
 * Aure entuluva (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alttext for the more relevant links. However, the alt text should still mention the village- i.e. killed in airstrikes on Pazigyi village- so that it's about this specific massacre as opposed to the other recent ones targetting other villages.  EmeraldRange  (talk/contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tweaked altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Horrifying development, with over 100 people murdered. I'm undecided on which blurb I prefer. Kurtis (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because its death toll makes it easily important enough & the article is good enough. Alt2 because it's shorter & contains enough info. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - not sure I support the alt though, I get it but also this is more firmly in the massacre of civilians/terrorism than battle in civil war territory. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted with a blurb largely based on alt 2, which can be discussed for possible improvement here: "In the Myanmar civil war, the military junta's air force kills over 100 civilians in Pazigyi."  Sandstein   17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note CNN is reporting the death toll as at least 165. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

[Closed] Kourakou and Tondobi attacks

 * Wait pending merge, leaning support if it's at an acceptable quality after the merge. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is @Thebiguglyalien is that there literally is no discussion (if you click the discuss link in the merge notice, it takes you to an otherwise blank talk page with only talk headers). - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well as it stands, the article isn't quite at sufficient quality. I don't think this merge would be terrible controversial, and I think it could be done as a WP:BOLD merge. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As this is the third double-digit attack that has happened in the past year, I would like our article to be of excellent quality before featuring it. The current state certainly won't do. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NEWSEVENT. Unless death toll is abnormally high, we shouldn't post based on how many lost their lives. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was this village last May attacked three times. The first time, eleven soldiers, no article. Then 17 civilians, no article, but after about 50 civilians, bam, current event. So no, divided by two villages, this "isn't that bad" for Burkina Faso. Still very bad there, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning oppose Death tolls are high, but not abnormally high as in Solhan and Tadaryat massacres. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now based on quality. Article is a bit too light on information right now, it's barely passed the stub phase.  Needs more information to be worth posting, IMHO.  Fix that and I'll change my vote to support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality As stated above, article is pretty bare. No opinion on significance yet. Curbon7 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. Not a stub, but still far too barebones for ITN. The Kip (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 21:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2023 Burkina Faso attacks needs to be merged into this. This pair of jihadist massacres are important enough to be posted, so it should be if the article is good enough after the merge. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Rutgers University strike

 * Oppose – Seems to only affect a single university, and not even a significant one at that. And while WP:SNOW isn't an official guideline, WP:POINT is. DecafPotato (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Amending my response: "not even a significant [university]" was incorrect. However, I maintain that that a strike contained to a single university is not ITN-worthy. DecafPotato (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Appears to fail WP:Notability (events). Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it evolves into nationwide strikes. For now, it's only happening in one out of over 5,000 higher education institutions in the country, so it's extremely unlikely to cause any disruptions in the US higher education.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – It's a nice looking article, and the event is of surprising scale and significance. I think either the article is a bit too short, or the event a bit too localized, for our purposes. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Perry

 * Weak support Some minor missed citations, especially in the Bibliography section, but those are probably covered by previous cited statements. Fine for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Think the article has been improved enough to meet ITN standards. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Improved enough to appear on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Improved and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maya Wildevuur

 * Support Article is well cited for ITNRD and short but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Short, interesting article and well cited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freddie Scappaticci

 * Weak support Article's sourcing seems to be alright, but just barely good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * support, Good enough for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple paragraphs lacking references.  Spencer T• C 17:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If sources are added, ok, but like this I oppose as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrew my oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and, I have added references to multiple unreferenced paragraphs. It should be better now. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing is now sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two cn tags to fix and there is nothing included about his death. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97 Fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Support. Good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

 * Oppose, Politico says there's a crisis but immediately says it's only ruffled feathers. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per abductive, this crisis is just ruffled feathers, and this is well cover by the ongoing. --M asem (t) 20:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above, and the fact that this is already covered. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 10 dollars, anyone? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — The documents, despite the name, are not entirely about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * With the recent arrest and controversy stirring around this incident we should reconsider inclusion for ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Fernando Sánchez Dragó

 * Oppose for now for two reasons 1) Article could use some expansion, there's very little on his work history, seems like a scattershot listing of random events from his life rather than a cohesive narrative. More prose could really help fill in the gaps.  2) There's some unreferenced statements in the biography, and that needs to be fixed.  If both of those problems are remedied, this would be ready for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is very short, is a WP:SANDWICH, and has some statements missing citations. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Good Friday Agreement
Proposed by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stucco9951 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do we usually post anniversaries of this nature? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not comply with the rules, which state: a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable There's been hardly any content added in the last few days, hence this proposal is not acceptable.  Schwede 66  08:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not even memorable enough for April 11...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On this Day is the place for anniversaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe at OTD, not here. 09:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose OTD, yes, but not ITN worthy at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Berger

 * Support. Updated, long enough, and well referenced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose seems fine for RD purposes, but the Discography could benefit from more referencing. I had a quick look at the current source (https://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/karl-berger, and I've only checked the first and last few entries, but failed to match those item listed on our wikipage.) --PFHLai (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I added some, but am too tired for more today - moved him one day up - when the news was announced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now all items are referenced (which means some are missing until a reference is found), as it's his last chance --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All items have been referenced, article is good. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @PFHLai to double check on the status of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It passes my random spot-checks. -- PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Texas dairy farm explosion

 * Oppose Sadly, the death of cattle in such an incident without significant human deaths really doesn't gain significance. It may be possible to DYK this ("DYK that the explosion killed 3% of the state's cattle?" but it doesn't feel right for ITN. --M asem (t) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The deaths of cattle wouldn’t normally be ITN-worthy, but 18,000 dead cows may make it ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does this qualify for an article? A death count, whether it be human or cattle, 18 or 18,000, has zero bearing on notability in and of itself. For what it's worth, way more than 18,000 cattle are killed every day. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I haven't seen any evidence of notability. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One of the largest losses of cattle in quite some time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sadly, people are more worried about the economic effects of these deaths rather than the actual effects. I understand that humans are quite human-centric, so if you need evidence that this is notable, take a look at Texas' cow population before and after the explosion. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 05:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. There have been no human casualties, it's an event with an impact in a very specific area of the world, so the impact and international interest is minimal. It's not clear to me that, if it had happened in another part of the world, it would even have its own article in Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think a catastrophic incident needs to have human casualties to be considered significant for ITN. That said, 3% of one US state's cattle population is frankly just not comparable to, for example, the 2020 Danish mink cull. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Jaffee

 * Was just about to nominate this ;) There are some unsourced paragraphs, let me see if I can reference them! Tails   Wx  23:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, you do it the hard way, eh? I normally just remove the unsourced material. /s Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Scientists (like us two) don't just dissect (on Wikipedia, removing unsourced material) all the time, we collect data, and research (like researching the sources to add on unsourced sentences!) Anyway, there are sources out there, so I'll "data-collect", "research", and go the hard way! ;) Tails   Wx  23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tails Wx You're missing the first four letters! :) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whaa? For clarity, what are they? Tails   Wx  00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * F, a, k, and e. :) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, haha! :D Anyway, back to work. I'll update you (or whenever someone else is) when the sourcing work is done! Tails   Wx  00:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Fakescientist8000's removals. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support There are a few (two or three) that may need sourcing but the information they have is not controversial and may be due to where the citations are placed. --M asem (t) 00:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The source work is much appreciated. Tisnec (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent and entertaining article which is more worthy of a blurb and/or picture than the current entries. It badly needs some examples of his work but has some nice quotes such as, "This is the core of Jaffee's work: the idea that to be alive is to be constantly beleaguered by annoying idiots, poorly designed products and the unapologetic ferocity of fate. Competence and intelligence are not rewarded in life but punished. ... He's uncommonly interested in figuring out how things work, and exasperated because things NEVER work."  Sounds just like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, one fold-in image (as non-free) would be reasonable, but that's not holding up an RD. It would be one thing if we knew plenty of free images were available but none were used on an RD article, non-free images on a page already filed with free images is less obvious of being "wrong" and would take some more careful debate to include. M asem (t) 12:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I see just now that a smart non-free choice has been made that shows a cover of MAD that incldes his own self-portrait AND the concept of a fold-in. That's perfect. M asem (t) 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, self-portraits which include the artist's work are especially good for this. See David Sutherland and Wally Fawkes for other recent examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One of the all-time greats. (Still some unreferenced bits.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lacotte

 * Support Triggered by all of the red links, but since those are just interwiki redirects it's ok. Article is big enough and well cited. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, well cited now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Huub Oosterhuis

 * Comment: Pretty close. I added a ref and an ISBN, but has 2 CN tags left.  Spencer T• C 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment One cn tag left. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. More than long enough and sufficiently cited. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support cn fixed, article ok now. Grimes2 (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rapsel Ali

 * Support - Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article is just a tad bit short, sadly. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article is fine. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good enough for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

 * Wait until there is a clearer picture of the degree to which this is just a misdirect. BD2412  T 02:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — "Apparent" tells all. I believe the documents are real, but this is an event that will linger in the news cycle and assessing its impact (for ITN purposes) is difficult. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a first in my experience, that an article creator opposed their article be blurbed at ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen man, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the talk page stuff. :P Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait The article describes something so vague and uncertain, it's not ready to nominate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to wait on this, but if this just ends up being a Russian spin-job (which is what it looks like) then I see no real reason to post this item. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why they would publish certain documents online if that was the case.. Mellk (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above.
 * - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now at least, and this isnt just a US story, see for example A senior intelligence official called the leak “a nightmare for the Five Eyes,” in a reference to the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the so-called Five Eyes nations that broadly share intelligence. But still no real word on how significant the fall out from this may be. So not enough to blurb imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Truth is the first casualty in war". We're supposed to work from reliable sources and this material seems otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of what's described in Contents has nothing to do with the title or the war. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I don't think this rises to a level worthy of ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the type of news event that is not clear if it will meet NEVENT and thus even a standalone article is appropriate. --M asem (t) 03:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Masters Tournament

 * Looks fine, plenty of text summary, which is welcome. Looks sourced. Support. Tone 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Nicely expanded event article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a really good looking sporting event article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Decent prose summary for all four rounds; I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has plenty of prose and looks good to go. The Kip (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the article could do with some cleanup for readability (it would benefit from having the tables/scorecards split away from interrupting the prose, and the participant list is a bit confusing, but otherwise it's updated and suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting, now that I've seen some more support. Feel free to update the picture. --Tone 20:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andreas K. W. Meyer

 * Support. Sufficient in length and referencing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks more than ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Corachow (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Timlin

 * Support Adequate depth, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 04:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Lerner

 * Oppose for now Many citations needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose more sources are needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Elisabeth Kopp

 * Question Should this be dated April 7 or April 14 since her death was reported on April 14? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * April 7. Vacant0 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One whole paragraph is unsourced, including some sentences. I've added cn tags. Once this is fixed, I'll change my vote to Support. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ian Bairnson

 * Oppose Article has been orange tagged, as well as a few unsourced statements across this short article means that it is currently not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose could pepper with cn tags. not ready yet. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ben Ferencz

 * Support - Article is well-sourced. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support there's one cn tage that should be fixed, but the article, in general, looks so good. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written and well-sourced article. Mooonswimmer 17:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RIP, prosecutor of Nazis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rachel Pollack

 * Support per rules Mostly a list but no tags This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose some content is unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Besides the lede being too short, there are no problems with the article as of now. Everything seems to be sourced properly. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead too short (orange tag).—Bagumba (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange tagged. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Cattermole

 * Support - sourced and in good shape article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, good for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is well-sourced. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to go. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography section is unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. The discography is sourced in the sub-article, it appears. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But not in the main article. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mimi Sheraton

 * Oppose. Article is a borderline stub. Needs expansion before posting to the main page. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jane LaTour

 * Support Article easily passes all checkmarks for ITNRD readiness. Good to go! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. Looks ready. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well expanded article. Good to go.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted'. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hobie Landrith

 * Support - Article is well-sourced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ingvar Hirdwall

 * Support Article in good shape and well referenced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weal support article is well cited and in good shape per Ollie, but its size worries me. Should be good, but expansion would be heavily appreciated. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - I have expanded the article further per your request. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Article is good, so I've decided to reinvent the weal. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Women's Finalissima

 * Comment This is a minor trophy, while notable for the England women's team I would say this match is relatively insignificant and not ITN-worthy. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a significant international honor in women's soccer and is basically equivalent to a supercup rather than a full-fledged tournament final. Besides that, the article has not been properly developed with a match summary or most of the necessary buildup.  Sounder Bruce  05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It's at least as ITN-worthy as darts championships. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Facetious comparisons with other ITNR items can rest. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Football is already the most well-represented sport on ITNR, to feature events beyond that they need to have stand out notability and this is not it. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - minor event.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all above. Minor event in soccer, the most represented sport on ITN by far save for darts . Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Opppose - This is not a premium event, and as noted above, football is already well supplied with high profile international events. This is nothing like the recent case of the World Baseball Classic, where it was a genuinely worldwide event in a sport that's otherwise desperately short of them. This is an inter-regional playoff in a sport where both regional and global events are already very high profile and well reported. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nora Forster

 * Support Article looks fine, well sourced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks in good shape and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bruce Petty

 * Oppose Article is a bit short, but mainly the lack of citations throws me off. This needs more citations in order to be ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per user above. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got a name... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Josep Piqué

 * Support Article is in good shape for what it's worth. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not in good shape: some sources needed and should be extended. I'm working on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article is no longer a stub, and is sourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Not a stub anymore, everything is sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I continue to expand it. I guess I'll have it finished by today. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2023 French pension reform strikes

 * Post-nom comment, at the time of nomination there had been only one article update in the preceding ~week (adding a quote from the US White House) + gnoming edits. Since then, these article additions have been made and more protests have occurred. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support removal&mdash;This story has largely run its course and serves no real purpose being on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Welp, guess I spoke too soon. Let's keep it on for at least a little longer. Kurtis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. While there are still some protests ongoing, it seems that the main wave of protests have stopped on or before 30 March. Vida0007 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SupportParadise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - based on two reasons. Firstly, the article is still receiving daily updates, and we usually remove from ongoing when an article hasn't been updated in a hot minute. Secondly, we still have news like how meetings with PM Elizabeth Borne and the French unions have failed, which is expected to usher in a fresh new wave of protests and strikes tomorrow (Politico). We should wait to remove this one. Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Knight. The Kip (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, article not receiving regular significant updates.  Spencer T• C 04:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Knightsoftheswords281. I've added a quick cursory update to bring the article up to date, but it's worth holding off on an ongoing removal until we see how the April 6 protests unfold. Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Knight, but also noting we had 30 March listed instead of 28 March for weeks, probably a typo of 20 March. RAN1 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support The removal is not based on the fact the event is ended (the strikes are still going) but that there's no significant updates to the article to reflect that. --M asem (t) 12:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The protests are not over yet. Let’s wait another week at least before a new discussion on removal.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait to remove for now. My usual standard is roughly either 1 week, or not older than the oldest blurb on the main page.  While other than the purely perfunctory addition made by Patar above, there hasn't been continuous updates to the article over more than a week, it does appear that these are ramping up again, and it seems likely that the protests today will be worth adding.  I think it's a little premature to take this down yet, but in a day or two if the article is not expanded considerably with ongoing events, I will be glad to reconsider and will support removal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This was back in the news over the last 24 hours and more strikes are expected in the next few days . If those turn out to be small, then we can re-assess. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Protests appear to be firing up again. On a related note though, I have only seen one substantive update to the article on the Israeli protests over the last four days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the Israeli protests article in this discussion. Please don't bring up unrelated topics.  It distracts from the topic at hand.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: Protests have not stopped. There are still weekly protests and ongoing strikes. Maxxies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the news literally now - Pension protesters set fire to Macron's brasserie of choice. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - looks to still be in the news and still in heavy action. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Seems like this will be getting regular updates again. It's as if they sprung back to life the instant this was nominated for ongoing removal. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Visit of Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Poland

 * Oppose I think this should be covered by ongoing (similar to the other trips to and from Ukraine that were not posted). The award is interesting but do not see its notability beyond the current context; the grant of such national honours is also common practice to maintain friendly relations and we do not usually post them. Gotitbro (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per Gotitbro PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we didn't post the visits to the UK or the US so I doubt we'll be posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obviously. He literally visited Poland 2 months ago, and has made 6 total visits to the country. This is not historic. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We can't blurb every leader's visit to or from Ukraine. I doubt this even merits its own article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would lay out my reasons why, but everyone above have essentially brought up the points I would've said. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The upcoming Artemis 2 Moon mission

 * Oppose Post when the mission actually happens. The Kip (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Kip. Would prefer to blurb it when the mission actually happens. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ada Bello

 * Oppose lots of statements w/out citations. Many CN tags, and this article is not yet ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article has been fixed following improvements, thank you all! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Ping if improved.BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, , all issues have been resolved! Tails   Wx  20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Improved and ready. Thank you.BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Craig Breedlove

 * Support All those numbers and decimals make hard reading but the pictures are good. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose some content need sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All content appears to have been sourced, so it looks good to go. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  12:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced. Quality looks good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready There are two whole unsourced paragraphs. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved! Tails   Wx  15:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tails. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support let's go! _-_Alsor (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Lee (businessman)
Posted Good work, all who spiffed this up. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;His article cites plenty of sources and is very informative. Kurtis (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in solid enough shape, thanks to good work by several editors in just the past day. DFlhb (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable person/page. Situation is ongoing, but I think no matter how he died, this would inevitably have been nominated. Kire1975 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Cheers. Wime  Pocy  12:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sources, quality is good. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is good in quality, enough for ITNRD. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tea Petrin

 * Teeny tiny oppose Article is barely not a stub, but it still needs expansion before I can comfortably agree to having this on the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolute weakest of weak supports - An instance in which an article was created at around the time this person died, so it hasn't quite been around long enough to fully determine whether it meets WP:GNG. But it seems good to me, in my unprofessional opinion. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your comment? Plenty of articles that go through here are created following the person's death. This particular subject meets WP:NPOL as a cabinet minister. Curbon7 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * support - Start class. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. New article but well written in a short time. --Tone 16:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Donald Trump arraigned

 * * Oppose: He was not arrested. He was arraigned after being indicted by a grand jury. I support the arraignment being featured in the news, but this is not factual.  Ppt91    talk   19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed the blurb to say arraigned rather than arrested. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since this was already nominated earlier under indictment, and to avoid further confusion with yet another nomination, here's my suggestion for a more accurate summary: "Former president Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 charges of falsifying business records, becoming the first president in U.S. history to face criminal prosecution." Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-pleads-not-guilty-34-counts-indictment-arraignment-manhattan-court/  Ppt91    talk   19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It was a consensus that we should wait until he was actually arraigned. Well now he has been. Stop moving the goalpost. The first former US President to be arraigned on charges is historical City1661 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * he was arrested right before the arraignment. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think precision really matters here. He surrendered himself to authorities to avoid arrest and was released after being arraigned.  Ppt91    talk   22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * People who surrender simply aren't resisting arrest, not avoiding it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point.   Ppt91    talk   01:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: changing my vote to support following blurb edits  Ppt91    talk   22:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Wait for the trial. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think it will get to trial, User talk:ElijahPepe? Given the talk about the defence trying to change the jurisdiction and the judge, I'd think their strategy would be be to tie it up in court for years until it is moot. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The defense will find it difficult to delay the inevitable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is what is fast. He dragged the 1973 racism case against him for 2 years, including a $100 million defamation counter-suit against the US Justice Department, before finally coming to an agreement to settle; and had he continued to fight that in court, it could have gone for years. The 2013 State of New York case against him got dragged on for almost 4 years before Trump settled and paid out $25 million. I don't see why this wouldn't be dragged out in court for many years - presumably trying to outwait the current (elected) District Attorney, Trump's death, or a change of government. I think this is a significant story. I can see holding it off a few weeks, or even months, if there's bigger aspects coming. But I don't see that happening; however what else will he be charged over in the next few months ... perhaps that's something we don't need to consider at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If this case drags on, and continues to have massive developments and stay in the news, perhaps we should consider for ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Meh per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:MANDY and the target should be New York v. Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed target article to Indictment of Donald Trump, because I would hate having an orange tag on the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * MANDY? Because of course Trump would plead not guilty? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Hulk experience. The Kip (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - first of all, he was arrested. The BBC and CNN both refer to this process as his "arrest and arraignment". Second of all, this is the biggest news story in the world at the moment. I maintain that Wikipedia looks incredibly silly to not have the most In The News story posted on ITN. I'm beginning to think we wouldn't have posted OJ Simpson's Bronco chase in ITN if Wikipedia were around at the time, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support' as it's a big story as per Rockstone's comment that I won't repeat. The trial won't be until 2024, if it happens at all. Seriously what are we doing here? Only natural disasters, elections, and sporting events that survive the ITNR purge can get posted? Indictment of Donald Trump should be the target, it is a high quality article and we should be showcasing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest a blurb along the lines of: "Former U.S. President Donald Trump (pictured) pleads not guilty to 34 charges after becoming the first American president to be indicted. There's a lot that I don't know about this story, but I think this blurb summarizes the main points well. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 20:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there an appropriate (not smiling) photo? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just use any photo of him that we have. If we can get one of him in court, great, otherwise a normal photo (like the one we posted of Putin) would suffice. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Suffice to make him more popular ahead of the 2024 election, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By this logic, posting the picture of the new Finnish PM made him popular ahead of the next election... <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unlike him, Trump, a former reality TV star, has been hyping that narrative to his political advantage, saying he raised more than US$8 million in the days since the indictment on claims of a "witch hunt." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America (37521073921).jpg is the photo the Trump campaign is using to sell a "mug shot T shirt". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would File:Donald Trump official portrait (cropped).jpg not work? DecafPotato (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends what you're going for. If you think this attention makes him happy, yes. Sad, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - great sourcing, great article. Good to go,BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be similar to the time when we blurbed Qatargate. I think the target article should be Indictment of Donald Trump. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with alternative blurb and target article Indictment of Donald Trump. Historically significant event. Funcrunch (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Should have been posted when the news broke on being indicted, the arraignment is just a predictable consequence of that. So meh. But also, WP:BLPCRIME definitely does not apply here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "public figure" sentence doesn't, but the rest applies to everyone (and in conjunction with MANDY, he's presumed guilty). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So then what part of BLPCRIME applies here? The MANDY wikilink is one of the things that people bandy about but forget that WP:BLPPUBLIC (which definitely does apply), says If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The only other part, about the presumption of innocence. Thought that was pretty clear. Anyway, you see a denial how you want, but his enemies made that essay for a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well obviously we should not blurb guilty Donald Trump pleads not guilty even though he's a guilty McGuilt face. I agree with you there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convicted. Blurbing for "riding the crest of the wave" and WP:RGW is not how it's done. Wait for the trial. CoatCheck (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What does RGW have to do with this? We're just saying what happened as RS are putting it. Like we should be doing. (It's in the news recieving significant coverage all over the world.) <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We're really going to have a nom for every checkpoint in this process, huh? Nah, this isn't as notable as the arrest and certainly not as much as an actual indictment (which will then be followed assuredly by appeals). DarkSide830 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Um this is the arrest? And you voted oppose on the indictment? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I was about to correct myself and you beat me to the punch (edit conflict moment). I meant the charges being levied. When the charged were levied this was fait accompli. And yes, I voted oppose before. I'm saying if we didn't post before we CERTAINLY shouldn't now. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused DarkSide830, - he was charged today at the arraignment. We didn't even know what he was going to be charged with - there was speculation that it was all misdemeanours relating to business reporting - rather than 34 felonies involving conspiracy.
 * Fair to say it changes things, but to be fair we, generally speaking, don't post arrests, and I'd argue the bigger news was the charges in general than the particular ones. And I think I wouldn't go as far as to say "conspiracy" was the charge here. The charges were about falsifying documents with such intent. The article itself makes no mention of a particular conspiracy charge. Look, I get the supports here, I'm just not too big on arrests in a general sense as ITN items. I understand the Trump aspect of things and how that impacts Support/Oppose votes, but I believe we should maintain a more solid position on arrests in general. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would recommend noting these are 34 felony counts, as opposed to misdemeanors. --M asem (t) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose is not the place to include every phase of Trump's judicial process. I don't understand what part of the consensus reached a few days ago about his imputation was not understood. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until there is a formal and firm conviction. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus reached a few days ago. The indictment nom was closed as no consensus to post. This is news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * a non-consensus is a tacit consensus. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Say what? No consensus is literally the absence of consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * or that it's simply a communion of opinions contrary to a nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except for the majority view being in favor of posting then, sure maybe there was a consensus against it? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, discounting the arguments that are explicitly disallowed under "Please do not...", there was consensus to post. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This truly is In The News all around the world right now. In my country, Australia, it's getting more coverage than anything else has for some time. Procedural arguments become irrelevant with unprecedented events such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it's not USA centric. When was the last G7 member arraigned? This is unprecedented and very much newsworthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the curious, the last ex-head of government of a G7 member to be charged with a crime is Nicholas Sarkozy. Then Silvio Berlusconi, then Jacques Chirac, then Kakuei Tanaka over the Lockheed bribery scandals. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I can tell, the person involved in this news item has only been charged and has not yet been found guilty by a court. Regarding the "it's in the news" argument, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Regarding the "it's a former US President" argument, Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. Chrisclear (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems that non-U.S. nations are following this story quite closely as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As with Depp v. Heard. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bit of a difference in defendants, implications, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but not in audience, as you mentioned (and both pale next to UFC or WWE's appeal). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but ITN is designed to provide links to stories that people want to read. This is one of them. If this story doesn't rise to the level of ITN, then ITN's purpose is useless.-- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose if theres a conviction and something comes out of it lets talk, but until them its all theatre and I don't think we need to be a part of it. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   21:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support with or without conviction, the fact that the former U.S. President was not only indicted but pleaded not guilty in court is blurbworthy. Making massive global coverage as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reason I opposed last time. Don't see anything that has changed since. We have not and should not post indictments/charges, the Putin posting being a grave error and should remain at that. Gotitbro (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support whether there's a conviction or not Per TDKR Chicago 101 and Rockstone's reasoning, as this does not concern just any businessman in New York or the leader of any country—we are talking about a former leader of a country with massive influence upon the global stage. The U.S.'s superpower status is also naturally driving news agencies in other countries to pin it to the top: see NHK WORLD-JAPAN, the BBC, and News24, which are all foreign news sites that have put this story up on the front page. In light of this continued coverage, I fail to see how Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia could be an argument against posting this to ITN.  Aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the trial, plus, we don't usually post about simple arrests, or arraignment. - User:Editor 5426387 (talk), 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for years? And then it will be the trial will only last a few months, we should wait for a decision. Then wait for the appeal. And the next appeal. We'd be doing a RD on him first ... This is major, significant, international, news. I was wait for the charges on the nomination last week. Now we've got the charges - and they are more significiant than may expected. Even earlier today, I heard media comments that there may be some felonies in there as well. But 34 felonies? Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - First US president to be arraigned. We were told to wait until he was arraigned, stop moving the goalpost. City1661 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It's called "In the News" not "fair trial completed". This is a very significant story. Looking on TV, I haven't seen so many TV networks go live since 9/11 - many were foreign. Just because it happened in New York City or the USA, doesn't mean it isn't important. I've vehemently opposed the frequent posting of typical crimes in the USA, even if they'd be shockingly unique in normal advanced democracies - but this is exceptional. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Add to ongoing, and fold into the general topic of legal investigations involving the subject. BD2412  T 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing doesn't make sense. The only next actions before December (the next in-person date) is the raft of motions that Trump's lawyers will try to use to clear all the charges before trial, which will still take months to process.
 * Mind you, I've seen rumors that Trump may also be arraigned from the other criminal cases pending against him, but that's nothing we can assert right now. M asem (t) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There will be constant commentary on it, though, emanating from all sides. We have all seen how the media will jump to make any scrap of news on this case their top headline. BD2412  T 01:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Constant commentary is not something that makes a topic newsworthy. Its ongoing events that do that. We shouldn't even be trying to seek out that much commentary at this time, per WP:RECENTISM, and wait until the matter has been well laid to rest to figure out how to right on commentary. That's what separates us as being an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. M asem (t) 03:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment "Pleads not guilty" should not be the focus of the blurb. Nobody pleads guilty at arraignment. Simplest blurb would be "Former U.S. President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records". — hako9 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "charged with" would be simpler than "faces". He was facing the charges before he was charged! It's the charges being laid that is significant, and historical, here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support for same reasons as last time. Former leader of the world’s most powerful country being indicted/arrested/arraigned/entering a plea/etc is a massive story, not just here but globally. The Kip (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after previously wavering on posting his indictment. The arrest of Donald Trump on multiple felony counts is a major news event, BLPCRIME be damned. Kurtis (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Arrest is true but kinda sensationalist. He was technically in a police custody before arraignment. — hako9 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I agree with using the word "arraigned" rather than "arrested". I use the latter phrase colloquially in this discussion to highlight the significance of what took place. Kurtis (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The first former U.S. President to ever be arrested. Even HiLo48 is supporting this, for God's sakes. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Obviosuly. This is the arrest of a former American president, formerly the most powerful person on the planet. This far and away meets the threshold of significance. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. It's the first time a former U.S. president has been criminally indicted, plus there are major implications for the 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Nsk92 (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose since when did we start posting arrests instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Banedon (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You just pointed out yourself that we don't have a prohibition on posting arrests. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin wasn't arrested. And this court is recognized. Whole other ballgame. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer altblurb 1. Indictment's unsealed, Trump's pled not guilty, and the article's good enough to post. RAN1 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - first arraignment of a former US president in history. This is not comparable to any other arrest, and it likely won't ever get to trial, and if it does, we should post it again, probably to ongoing. And if there's a verdict, post that, too. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons I supported the indictment last week, just stronger. Davey2116 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be front page news on CBC in Canada, not just US 2607:9880:2D28:16:D27:F7D9:BD6D:6D08 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The headline "screams" election interference, which the proposed blurbs don't even mention, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just another example of WP:MANDY. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also just Reuters, beyond the headline. Cool Canadian company. But no CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - normally I would go on a lengthy rant about why this should be posted, but everything's already been said so Imma pull an @Editor 5426387 and say per above.
 * - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

PP oppose. Give that guy some more attention for what? Who cares? He is "on trial" more or less since the beginning his presidency with his withheld tax returns and much more since the revolt of the 6 January. Pull.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Jusdafax (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Number one news item around the world, and for Wikipedia users. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply in this case and we are under no obligation to not post this, given how the subject is arguably at the apex of public figurehood. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – This is the type of story that seems to divide ITN/C, an extremely high-profile event that borders on the typical "we don't post these" cases. Arguments over the past several days (inclusive of the initial no-consensus nomination on March 30) have shifted in favor of posting as of the official arraignment. Those in support are weighting the notability of Trump and importance of the United States on the global stage as well as it being in headlines in many nations. Those in opposition focus on this not being the conviction/acquittal and on WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding "we don't post [event]", the sentiments of WP:OTHERSTUFF apply as we should adapt to circumstances and should not, for the most part, have blanket statements. While we cannot make assumptions on the long-term importance (or lack thereof) of this, it remains a major event in U.S. politics that certainly warrants the thorough encyclopedic article it has. Part of our purpose at ITN is to guide readers to top news with high-quality articles and that is the case here. This discussion remains open for continued comments if views change on how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: this is something "in the news". Current blurb is good. Keep it pithy. Omit needless words. Given that it's not outside the realm of possibility the guy could wind up being charged with more criming, might not be bad to open up a discussion about how to respond. --47.155.46.15 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who needs to read "not guilty", mere formality. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't understand your reply. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two-thirds of the true blurbs mentioned "not guilty", the one that won "omits them", it's all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He has not entered any pleas yet. In U.S. judicial practice that doesn't happen at the time of arraignment. Saying he did is therefore stating a falsehood to readers. If someone doesn't understand how the U.S. legal system works and concepts like presumption of innocence, a blurb in ITN is not where they are going to get well-educated. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was misinformed on that. I maintain my broader point however. ITN is not going to be the place where we dispell every reader's possible misconceptions about the world, and shouldn't attempt to be. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how you spell "dispel", but whatever, as long as we all remember Trump, somber and silent as he entered and exited the Manhattan courtroom, said "not guilty" in a firm voice while facing a judge who warned him to refrain from rhetoric that could inflame or cause civil unrest. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do tend to agree with IP, that we shouldn't try to stuff as much information into a blurb as possible in an effort to inform readers, much like the guy who frequently haunts this place and asks that any blurb involving an American city needs to include "United States" in it to let readers know that New York City isn't in Belgium or Tonga or wherever. In The News's job has always been to guide readers to topics they may have heard about, and then it's up to them to decide how many rabbit holes they want to travel down vis-a-vis the American judicial system or Donald Trump's legal history. I had honestly thought it was odd that the judge would tell him to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Trump's no spring chicken to legal machinations. He's likely not going to rant and rave in court; he's going to shut up and let the lawyers do the work for him. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m honored that you remembered me, WaltClipper. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I wasn't referring to you, but I'm honored that you feel honored. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're telling me New York isn't in Belgium?! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (post-posting) For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - everything that needs to be said has already been said and I'd rather not beat a dead horse, so I'll just mention that I agree with and appreciate Cyclonebiskit's explanation of why this was posted. <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> 💙 08:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: This is a major news that cannot be ignored on ITN. This story is covered by every single news outlet worldwide. In certain circumtances like this one, flexibility should supersede rigid rules.^^Maxxies (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Trivial comment Putting extra modifiers "first former" (supposedly to differentiate from "first serving"?) is stretching this a bit as far as arrests of presidents go, Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant was much earlier. (Charges were dropped, so this would really only be an oppose about calling out the 'arrest' part as being unique). — xaosflux  Talk 10:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PP Strong Oppose We post convictions, not unproven allegations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We post what we choose to post. Arguments like this seem an attempt at a supervote. It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven. That is not the case here. Trump's guilt in this case is immaterial to the very impactful event of the indictment/arraignment.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My opposition to posting allegations is based on BLP. You are free to disagree with that interpretation of one of our more important policies, but it has been widely cited in past discussions as the main reason for sticking to convictions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like the sheer impact of this arraignment makes it one of the few legitimate examples where WP:IAR applies. We're not not going to post such a notable event because of internal policy. The Kip (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just of note, Ad, if we're going to be Wikilawyers today, I see your WP:BLPCRIME and raise you a WP:BLPPUBLIC, which states, and I quote, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs..." Trump passes the "public figure" test in spades, so arguments against posting allegations rather than convictions are nullified by the notion that, as a public figure, well documented allegations may be covered; insofar as reliable sources have covered the arraignment, it seems like a valid argument to post on those grounds. You can say we should ignore that.  I mean, you can say anything.  It's still been posted, and it probably isn't going to be taken down.  If it makes your ego feel better to make your objection public, well, have fun!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish people would read WP:BLPCRIME before linking it, which does not a. prohibit the inclusion of any material anywhere, and b. explicitly disclaims its applicability to a public figure. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe GreatCaesarsGhost implicitly alluded to BLP (specifically BLPCRIME) when he said that he believes we generally avoid posting convictions because "we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." I am generally in favor of this mindset, as people too often equate an arrest with proven guilt. However, I am convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance in which BLPCRIME doesn't apply, for the reasons outlined by Jayron32 and GCG. Kurtis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." Correct. Unfortunately, for many people, the simple fact that someone has been arrested is reason enough by itself to assume that they are guilty. BLPCRIME is intended to prevent the laypeople's presumption of guilt from being amplified to such an extent that it has unintended consequences for them offline (e.g. influencing public opinion to the extent that it undermines the individual's ability to have a fair trial). The circumstances surrounding Trump's arraignment&mdash;a former president with such a high profile as to render our acknowledgement of his arrest inconsequential&mdash;are unique enough by themselves to merit making an exception in this case. Kurtis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While this may be unproven, and I think we should all work on the assumption that Trump is innocent until proven guilty, this story is still In The News, and this marks the first time in US history that a former president has been arrested. It's big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PrecariousWorlds's wording of the first time in US history that a former president has been arrested is correct (Grant was an incumbent). This is also the first time any US president, former or not, has been indicted. Grant was given a fine for speeding, but he ultimately never had to pay anything. This story, on the other hand, has a lot of remarkable firsts for the United States. <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> 💙 18:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a meaningful difference between being metaphorically "on trial" and being actually on trial... <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> 💙 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who cares? The reliable sources that published the information about the event.  It's apparent from your commentary that you don't care, but here at Wikipedia, personal feelings don't matter in decision making.  Reliable sources do.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel that this discussion should be closed. The other comments that have been posted are post-posting opposes for reasons either already proven, or coming mostly from personal thoughts. I'm not sure how to close discussions (or if only admins can do so), but that's my thoughts on further discussion of this. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Klaus Teuber

 * Oppose for now "Top in [his/her] field" is no longer a criteria. This is a stub, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb (not changing), oppose RD for now Article is a stub for now, needs expansion in order to qualify for ITNRD. Not nearly notable enough (or have that good of an article) for a blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The German and Russian WP articles are much longer, fwiw. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose , Article needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with thanks to the editors who have greatly expanded this article in the last two days. Connor Behan (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * there are still many CN tags. This is not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been expanded a little bit, not a stub anymore. I don't see any issues with sourcing now, this seems to have been addressed. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Voorschoten train crash

 * Comment I know a lot of people don't like the unwritten WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criterion, but with only one fatality, and probably no wider significance, I'd be inclined not to post this one... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there's no minimum deaths requirement to post something on ITN, but there's also no compelling argument to post this. I'm open to changing my mind, but I have a feeling this will be snow closed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Tragic incident, but as @Amakuru and @Rockstone35 have pointed out, this isn't really notable enough to post. Unfortunately, many accidents like this happen all the time. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this isn't quite as common as first appears. We have two trains colliding with an obstruction on the line. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are unusual accidents regularly, we don't post every single one. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rare incident and tragic, but not significant enough that it led to protests like Thessaly or disaster in East Palestine, Ohio. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fatal train accidents in Europe are not common, but with only one fatality it does not seem to me to be noticeable enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats FYI there are hundreds of people killed on the railways each year in Europe and that's not including the suicides. See Railway safety statistics in the EU. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose one of hundreds, one fatality, yadda yadda yadda, but it's not US-centric so therefore it should be picture blurb'd and held up onto the Main Page for 3 weeks minimum. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy McGrath

 * Support Quite the story, and quite the article! Passes the citation and the heftiness of the article test. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There are enough sources & details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) WWE sold to UFC parent Endeavor

 * Oppose — Not notable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ElijahPepe. Notability isn't there for me. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pretty underwhelming news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose companies doing company stuff. Irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN ignored them individually, why stop now? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine business transaction creating a monopoly on TV violence. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Greg Francis
Comment, At his age it is better to know the cause of death. Alex-h (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately young, but article needs expansion in order to be considered for ITNRD. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The cause of death was not released. Curbon7 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Enrique Mendoza

 * Oppose for now Clearly very notable, however, the article is currently a stub.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    21:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nigel Lawson

 * Support Looks good to me. Not notable enough for blurb, I think. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine enough for ITNRD - but this old chap was a rapscallion with longevity, so not worthy for a blurb. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  11:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable British politician. Don't think a blurb has been suggested and do not see support building for only a former Chancellor of the Exchquer ([as a point] his daughter is perhaps more well known internationally than him). Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I only knew Adams, Griffiths and Farage, but the article is clear, no blurb proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Six {cn} tags remain, mostly in the "In government" subsection. Other than that, this is well-written. Vida0007 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm ready given CN tags.  Spencer T• C 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose cn tags must be fixed. Not ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've added the missing citations. Looks ready now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Finland Joins NATO

 * Per the article in question "Currently, Finland is scheduled to become an official member of the alliance on 4 April 2023" Why jump the gun?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the explanation, I don't recommend we post it early, I just started the discussion early so we can have a blurb ready on time, as it is a scheduled event that we know will take place in a matter of hours. Theres precedent for this too as was done when Croatia Joined the EU. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until 1:35 UTC Tuesday, then post immediately - I think new members of NATO should be in ITN/R, this is definitely notable enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a race. Nothing particularly harmful happens if the posting occurs some time after that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It is definitely ITN-worthy, and I second trying to get it in ASAP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as @Blaylockjam10 pointed out, we did post North Macedonia joining NATO in March 2020, and especially given what else was happening in that month, I think that sets a good precedent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Would the article Enlargement of NATO be a better target? The article as a whole is a GA.  Just an idea.  Maybe bold both?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I like keeping Finland-NATO relations as a target article because it contains most of the information related to Finland's accession (I think keying something along the lines of "finland accession to NATO" will redirect there), but if there's a way to fit in a link to Enlargement of NATO then that could make sense, too. <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> 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the words 31st member could direct there? I made that an altblurb just in case it might work. <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> 💙 19:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When N. Macedonia (the last country to join NATO before Finland) joined NATO, the blurb linked to the North Macedonia–NATO relations article. Also, that blurb used NATO instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like NATO is more recognisable at this point than typing out the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It’s why I suggested alt blurb 2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until effective, then consider this a Support per above. Agree that new members of NATO would make sense for ITN/R. Also, I'd recommend changing the target photo if we use one at all. As much as I like the Finnish flag, it would feel a little odd just using the svg of it. Maybe a photo of leaders from Finland and NATO shaking hands would be more appropriate? <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> 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * at right is a photo of klaus korhonen, finnish ambassador to nato, shaking hands with nato secretary general jens stoltenberg, when finland submitted its official application to join nato back in may. this seems like a decent image to feature until someone uploads a picture of today's ceremony to commons.  dying (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait It hasn't happened yet, when it does happen, then this will be a Support.  TomMasterReal  TALK 17:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait then Support per above. The Kip (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - as a young geopolitical geek myself, this is a historic moment; I get to see NATO expand in my lifetime and actually be able to remember it. Agree with wait until actually in effect and also @PrecariousWorlds's assertion that new NATO members should be WP:ITN/R. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well Sweden should be joining next, and many others have applied, so there will be no shortage of new members entering NATO. Still, this is rather historic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support when it actually happens. Big geopolitical shift. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, but wait to post per nominator Plenty of huge military implications, especially as Finland and Russia are border neighbors. Aside from a huge block of text in the application section of the target article, it looks well-sourced and good to go.  Aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added several paragraph breaks. It's still a massive chunk, though. Someone might want to remove the extraneous "2022"s and "2023"s and limit the citations to three, per WP:OVERCITE. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per nomination, but otherwise looks good to go. DecafPotato (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, then support per above. I’d prefer alt blurb 2 or alt blurb 3. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Odota, sitten Tuki per above and Google Translate. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, once the timing is correct tomorrow per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ALTBLURB III at 13:25 UTC per all above, also a nice way for the Finnish to stick it to Ol' Vladdy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why ten minutes early? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major event, it is obvious. Once the timing is right this should be posted quickly as possible. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Per everything above. Major news and today's the day! Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 09:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2 hours and 45 minutes early. Finland isn't yet part of NATO I believe. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finland is now officially a member, membership becomes effective once the applicant country deposits their instrument of accession to the depository (the U.S. State Department). In this case it happened at 12:46 UTC when Anthony Blinken received the document. The final formality (the flag raising ceremony) takes place in a few minutes. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Still, four minutes late. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that we're not a news ticker where this sort of thing would be problematic. Right? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a very good thing indeed, I concur PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Finland–NATO relations, which is bolded in the blurb, is orange-tagged and contains swathes of unreferenced text (the "History" section and the "European Union membership" sub-section are fully unreferenced). While it's true that this is major news and should be posted, the article is not of sufficient quality to appear on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced sections are a problem, but the article seems to be updated, so I’m not worried about that. However, I’m not sure what (who put the update tag in the article) thinks. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment can we change the bolded article to NATO, at least until the Finland-NATO relations article is fixed? NATO is a GA, it has been updated, and it should be fine for the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finland joining Nato is now appearing at the bottom of the itn list even though it is newer news than other items. I've started a discussion of this on the talk page. Fdfexoex (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Galarrwuy Yunupingu

 * Support I've done a bit of work fixing it up and adding better refs supporting some of the information. Also found and added some CC images. I think it's in good enough shape for RD now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable man with good coverage and the article checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape with citations and is well beyond a stub. Very interesting person, who I sadly only have learned of since his passing. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) 2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election

 * Support Potentially worth waiting a few hours to post due to the results not fully being in, but otherwise I don't think there are any issues with the article. Regarding the blurb, how about an altblurb of 'In the Bulgarian parliamentary election, the GERB—SDS coalition, led by Boyko Borisov (pictured), narrowly beat the PP–DB alliance, winning the most seats in the Assembly.'? Quinby  ( talk ) 11:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth noting though that using terms like coalition could be misleading, and may suggest more of a bloc politics in the country, so more neutral words like 'alliance', 'grouping' or 'list' may be better. Quinby  ( talk ) 11:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Quinnnnnby Added the altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. A quick check reveals major problems with the article, for example the expanded results table in the "Results" section doesn't match the abbreviated table in the Infobox.  I haven't looked much further than that, but with such a glaring inconsistency in that case, I worry about the accuracy and stability of the rest of the article.  Get it together first before we even consider posting this on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 If I'm correct, the vote discrepancy was due to differing interpretations of the NOTA vote, and its been fixed. There is however an issue of posting it now, with the final seats not released regionally, but after a few days, this news is less relevant. Quinby  ( talk ) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait Full of polls and projections, saying "According to parallel counts of sample polling stations by several polling agencies, the final result was a close race ..." We should wait for the actual official result.  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Only estimated results are available, and they show <2% between the top two parties - within the margin of error and too close to call. We should wait for the full official results, and use the date they become available for determining the blurb order. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This looks detailed & well-sourced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) NCAA Division I men's/women's basketball tournament championships

 * Comment Should also have a short summary of the teams at —Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Future tense, unexplained acronyms, routine sport. Me, I watched the Australian GP while there were big crowds around here for the EFL.  So it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Routine sport"
 * ...As you've been told dozens of times, if you have an issue with its inclusion you know exactly where to take it. Would be great if the constant stream of complaints would be put to something more productive. The Kip (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what kind of annual sports tournament isn't routine. Still, another example to use in the inevitable ITN topic ban proposal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "Participants" section is void and would benefit from adding prose on how the season went for the finalists. Also, per ITN/R, we have to post a combined blurb of the men's and women's finals, but the men's hasn't taken place yet and that article has long way to go. Furthermore, the article is full of red links probably because the players lack notability. Do we really want to feature one such article on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until men's game is finished and that article is updated as well. Events are ITNR, so significance is not an issue, but we need two quality articles, and as yet, we only have the one.  Tomorrow we should be able to post this once both articles are up-to-snuff.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now. Both bolded articles are of sufficient quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the quality is there, we don't need to have women wait for men e.g. the 2021 US Open.—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Post the women's tourney now, update with the men's once complete. ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More gun jumping we don't need at ITN. Close and re-nom when the men's tournament is over. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, same as Muboshgu, post now, update tonight. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - post the women's result now and update with the men's later. Not rocket science. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be tempted to unlink 2023 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament, because it's vastly unsourced ... but as long as the final has sources, eh? (even if most of the players are redlinks). Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, we only scrutinize bolded links.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's a real need for that article for the reader to understand the posting, yes ... there's no need for this link though as the tournament is obviously linked in the first sentence of that article. Really no need to have subpar stuff like that linked on the Main Page.  You could simply boldlink "win the Women's Championship" to the final article. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus that this was an issue at —Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* whatever. But I don't see any reason to do so if there's no real need for it. It actually makes the blurb more readable as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree, and there's a chain link in the blurb too. Dont need that much blue in the blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an argument for too many links, but it's on par with others like the Austalian Open. Perhaps we need blurb guidelines on link density and what's reasonable to find in bolded page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with *sigh*, weak support whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support  Sufficient breadth and sourcing. No modern reason to make women wait for men, for blurbs or otherwise. Update for men later, if and when ready.—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Combined support below.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba. The Kip (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment background for both teams have been completed, thanks for your help with that.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and add men later (assuming that article is also up to snuff). I don't see a reason to wait when the women's target article is already well-written and well-sourced. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Aftermath section and broadcast section are both now done as well. This should be ready to go up. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hold for men's tourney to end, then support per all others. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked ready.—Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and update with the men's result later, per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb updated with men's result. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt I've restored the previously ready women's result, now to the alt blurb. The women's is ready, and there's no timetable if or when the men's portion will be deemed ready.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yeah, this is ITN/R, but everyone knows that's absurd, so I can't in good faith support this. If the college football final isn't posted, then neither should the college basketball be. Simple as that. This isn't bigger than that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote in January: one thing that does seem odd is having NCAA basketball but not NCAA football. I'd have thought the latter was the more popular event in the American calendar, but I could be wrong. What changed to make you adamant that you are right now?—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your rationale of "We screwed up something once in the past, so we're now forced to continue to screw things up" seems like a highly illogical rationale, and thus can be easily ignored. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it absurd? We just had a nomination to remove (which I supported) where the majority favored keeping it. You have to respect consensus if you want to be a valuable contributor here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I also think that posting lower-tier sport in ITN is ridiculous. You have to follow consensus; you don't necessarily have to agree with it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support combined Men's page is also sufficiently covered and sourced now.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There a reason this isnt being posted? Besides sour grapes of course. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure an admin that doesn't think that posting amateur sports to ITN is somewhat daft will be along at some point. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I could do it, I don't think it's daft. But I'm hesitant to post quite yet, because - although I think there's a clear enough consensus that the women's blurb is ready - I don't think there has been sufficient support that the men's blurb is ready.  If no one object strenuously enough in the next hour or so, I'll post the women's and wait for the men's.  But I'd like to see a clear consensus the men's blurb is ready, if people could continue to comment on that below. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The men's article looks ready to me. I have not edited these articles but won't post the blurb because I voted above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder where we might find one? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fine; feel free to post it. Hopefully this is the last year we'll have to go through this nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging all of you supported posting women's final - your feedback and evaluation on the men's final would be much appreciated.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks ready to me; don't see a reason for any more delay.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pawnkingthree; article is ready to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted women's blurb. As mentioned above, waiting a little longer to confirm consensus for combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined. Both articles look good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted combined. No one has said it's not ready, a couple more people have said it is, and I imagine the Donald Trump discussion has sucked (and will continue to suck) all the available oxygen out of this room, so I've gone ahead and posted the combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Andorran parliamentary election

 * Support conditional on article being expanded. We posted Monaco and this is much more of a real country than that This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional support regarding quality - damn, everyone in Europe having an election today? - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria is having one aswell! ITN is gonna be so much fun in the coming days... Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's about 200 sovereign states and so this might as well be a permanent feature like RD. It would look like this:
 * Elections: Andorra, Bulgaria, Finland, Montenegro, Turkmenistan...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all RD's if transformed into blurbs are essentially the same, "X died at y age." Elections tell us who won, if power shifted or stayed the same, etc. Deaths lend themselves to a rotating list, elections can be summarized in a sentence the way we do it. Courcelles (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that the same could be done with "Deadly natural disasters: Tornadoes in the United States...". And that's not ITN's goal. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's backwards. RD should be expanded to explain who the person was and how they died because their name is not enough.  Elections seem more samey per the adage that "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah what on Earth is going on, there's like five different elections today lol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Going to be a blurb avalanche PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, with how stale ITN can be at times, I'm all for it. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is a table farm with very little prose. Has absolutely no meaningful lead section, very little prose is provided explaining the election process, campaigns, results themselves and their implications, etc. etc.  Not something we should be posting on the main page.  Write the article first before asking it to be posted!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per recent improvements. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Run-of-the-mill table article. More prose needed, asap. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Post posting support Article was fixed, thank you to Alsonario to cleaning the article up. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose nobody cares. Andorra is the size of a small town, 0.00099% of the world population. It's merely a place where French people go buy dishwashers and TVs with no VAT tax. That's it. It's not because you can post something that you should. And even within this, it's no turning point like for Montenegro, who by the way is 1000% more populated although still widely considered tiny. Synotia (moan) 08:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and let people think you are not ignorant, than to speak up and confirm that you are. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this insightful counter-argument! I am now convinced Andorran elections are front-page news. Synotia (moan) 09:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you that same guy who was opposed to posting about 2023 global banking crisis because it's irrelevant and Americocentric? Yet you think Andorran elections are relevant? Interesting perspective I must admit Synotia (moan) 09:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's as easy as reading the easily understandable ITNR election rules. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline. The word "rule" is not used once. Synotia (moan) 09:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment is so pedantic that I can't even fathom how to properly respond. All I will say is that the ITNR page is basically our curated book of standards for recurring items. The consensus to list an item on it is achieved only through rigorous discussion. Your sarcasm is also not appreciated, as it comes across as very mocking. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not being pedantic. I've always been baffled by how Wikipedians take guidelines for the word of God himself. Synotia (moan) 20:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you choose to participate at ITN if you refuse to do so productively by actually learning how the space operates. Dare I bring up this farce. Or this one. Or this one. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment    I've been working on this article and I think it meets the requirements already, at least the minimum requirements. Can you take a look at it now, please? _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This qualifies as ITNR and the article meets our minimum standards for posting. But only 20,000 votes were cast - less than most local elections in other countries. The population of Andorra is smaller than many sports stadiums. While I applaud the article author(s) for producing a comprehensive coverage of such an obscure topic, I just can't get behind posting it in ITN. I suppose I'm gradually coming around to thinking the ITNR criteria need to change, though I couldn't say what they should be replaced with... <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, this argument again. Curbon7 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article's prose is much more fleshed out. This item is ITNR and we post all elections of this sort, no matter if the country is the United States or tiny Nauru. This is so as to avoid constantly legislating which countries are and are not worthy of posting. This was most recently upheld with the posting of Monaco, but also Nauru a few months back. Curbon7 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It’s ITNR & the quality’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have copyedited a bit, the article seems good enough and is ITNR. Let the world know about a tiny country called Andorra.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyediting! _-_Alsor (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Montenegrin presidential election

 * Support - I think heads of state generally are considered ITN/R, but I'm not certain. Anyway, article looks good and the significance is there. However, the phrasing of the blurb feels a little weird, something along the lines of "Jakov Milatović is elected President of Montenegro, defeating incumbent Milo Đukanović" might be better, particularly to emphasize the fact that the incumbent was defeated. Estar8806 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb I - looks good, is mostly prose and not a table wall. Agree with @Estar8806 that we should emphasize that his opponent was incumbent. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support AB1 Change of head of state is ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - no !vote on blurb choice. But definitely ready for ITN. Significant and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - dont think this is ITN/R, that says Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, which in Montenegro (if our article is to be believed) is the Government of Montenegro headed by the Prime Minister of Montenegro, not the President. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination does state that this is not ITN/R. The nominator rather does make a compelling argument that this is a major turning point for this country. Curbon7 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The box says yes and so do a couple of votes though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Major event, support. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article seems solid, and the nominator's rationale is persuasive. Agree with Estar and others that the blurb should mention that Đukanović was the incumbent. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks to be sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support very, very good election article. Lots of prose to accompany the tables. Side note, do we typically bold the election winner too? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted the alt blurb that mentions the incumbent.  Schwede 66  21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Have we formally stopped asking for prose in the results and reactions sections of the election articles? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Bombing in Saint Petersburg

 * Comment - Would this be covered by the ongoing? Obviously there is notable death mentioned in the nom's comments, but he's already been nominated for RD, which I presume will be posted. I think that the ongoing + that RD would sufficiently cover this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no definitive evidence that this was related to the war, and considering that we posted the Kyivan helicopter crash in January, I would say no. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sure, terrorist attacks in Russia are rare, but this only killed one person. The person himself being a simple Russian propagandist. So I personally oppose. Besides, we blurbed the helicopter crash because it killed 3 high-ranking Ukrainian politicians. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. Considering it's not necessarily related to the ongoing war, seems good for posting. Estar8806 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is only one confirmed death (Tatarsky). Mellk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Many people were injured from this bombing as well. From the article 30 people were injured, 24 were hospitalized, 6 were seriously injured. 2607:FEA8:E300:B8C:90C3:9BA8:BC6D:EB69 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is still in rough shape, includes mentions and inclusions of loosely or completely unrelated events. Open to changing my vote if there are improvements or further evidence supporting the articles assertions. (eg, Why is the October 5th incident mentioned?) Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as an unusual and major event for Russia. Haven't actually looked at the article yet, so I can't speak to its quality. Kurtis (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Well I've looked at the article and this appears to have been a targeted assassination of a particular person, who has been separately nominated for RD. Such events are not rare – they are quite common in Russia, especially lately – see Suspicious deaths of Russian businesspeople (2022–2023), Russian military commissariats attacks, 2022–2023 Russian mystery fires, &c.  The main problem is that the claims and sources are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, but I feel like the fact that this has killed or injured 37 other people prevents it from being another assassination. Checking those articles, this is the only event in months that has this high of a death toll. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one person killed, according to the article. BorgQueen (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm normally an inclusionist on ITN but Andrew has made a persuasive argument above. Plus the article quality isn't that great at the moment. RD for Vladlen Tatarsky should suffice. BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. The targeted murder of a war propagandist in a totalitarian police state is not ITN material. The war is being covered in ongoing. If the incident rates little or no coverage there, that kinda says a lot in itself. Beyond which, Andrew has raised a very legitimate point about sources and their reliability. A lot of what is being reported is coming from the Russian government and the Russian press/media. Excuse me for repeating myself. Clearly something happened. The event is undoubtedly WP:notable. But it's not enough for ITN and we really don't know much beyond what the Russians are saying. I'm fine with RD conditional on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb Notable figure and a rare thing to happen to 30 other Russians. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insignificant incident in country in which many suspicious deaths happen kills one and hurts a couple couple dozen other people. Yeah, no, not blurb-worthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thirty is not a couple (a couple dozen were hospitalized). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. About half a dozen never will be. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reminder to everyone (including you), that Ohio train derailment we posted still hasn't killed or sickened anyone more than countless thousands of fish, insects and birds (maybe a fox). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The train derailment was the top story in most news outlets though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The assassination should be an RD entry. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That way, it doesn't look like an assassination. If that's the point, it makes sense. If not, though... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think Tatarsky is sufficiently notable to justify blurbing his murder, which is what this amounts to. He didn't even have an article until his death was reported, so can't have had that big an impact on the war. Does that also disqualify him from RD? If not, the biographical article could be posted there instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN, and RD by extension, is designed to feature newly created (or expanded) articles. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Finnish parliamentary election

 * Support - looks good, has some real prose and is not just a table-wall. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above basically. Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Quality looks good. DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finland is going to join NATO tomorrow, perhaps this blurb could be merged into it. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:540B:5D9:43C5:2117 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whole other story (perfectly reasonable photo). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladlen Tatarsky

 * Support - Sourced. Prose looks ok. Length as well. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of what we are getting is coming from Russian sources, but that's probably unavoidable. I think the article is OK for RD. Opposing the proposed blurb though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb As seen above, death is a story. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD article is good enough for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking this as Ready for RD. Discussion regarding a possible blurb is ongoing above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article is in good shape for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled then Reposted) RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto

 * Support - Legendary musician Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * True, and for what it's worth, the quality of their article is solid too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is in great shape, no objections to posting. PolarManne (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Awards and discography sections need a bit more citations before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Missing sources have been added to the Awards and Nominations and the Discography sections. Is it to your satisfaction? Maxxies (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of paragraphs with no citations. I don’t think this was acceptable to post. Thriley (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, my tools count 8 citation needed tags! Tails   Wx  22:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is now up to ten, so definitely needs more work! Octopusplushie (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh...see, this is why we shouldn't have jumped the gun and posted it when it had so many tags and issues! Tails   Wx  03:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled We can reinstate the article once it's up to scratch.  Schwede 66  00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been significantly improved with citation links thanks to the combined effort of several editors. At this time, there are no missing citations. Maxxies (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A major figure with about half a million readers so far. The cn seem quite petty and not significant as the article has over 100 citations and there are many eyes on the topic.  I checked out one of the tags and addressed it; it wasn't difficult. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it should not have been posted. The whole of the 1990s and 2000s paragraphs have large unsourced sections. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Reposted All sourcing is up to scratch now. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post reposting support Article is up to ITNRD standards. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Salim Durani

 * Oppose Article is a stub, and expansion is needed in order for this to qualify for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Haziqul Khairi
Fahads1982 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good enough to post.Fahads1982 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Fahads1982. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support still waiting for this article to post.
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Multiple major positions mentioned in the lede, including Chief Justice and role in the Council of Islamic Ideology are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article.  Spencer T• C 03:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose agree with Spencer. It's necessary to expand the article to show his notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ramadan stampedes in Pakistan

 * Support Tragic symptom of economic collapse This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Acceptable death toll, terrible article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Acceptable death toll" - I know what you mean, but there are so many other, much better ways to express it... 51.154.145.205 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I disagree with the notion that we should have an "Acceptable death toll", as per WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, unremarkable death toll, and the article is shit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll do you one better: absolutely tragic and depressing loss of life, and the article is a shame to our standards. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading this discussion, my one thought is... what the hell? I feel Hulk missed Precarious's point with that comment (a point which, by the way I agree with), in which news events with a death toll should be decided by the notability of the subject, not the death toll itself. If it is notable for the death toll alone, it should not be posted. Just my two cents. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I may have. I might be missing yours, too, because all event articles are presumed to have met the general notability guideline. Athlete and politician bios are different, the subject just has to play or win once, respectively. Call it shit, just not great or a shame to our standards, but not non-notable. That said, I disagree that notability is enough, and am changing my vote to plain oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This may be notable enough to post, but I’m currently opposed on quality. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. The scope of the topic is unclear as there's several incidents and issues being collected together in a rather synthetic way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose  The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Fahads1982 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  12:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose , On quality, issues are not in order. Alex-h (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Quality is just not great. If it were to be brought up to standard, I'd support, since this shines a light on the Pakistani economic crisis, but quality is just not there. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seymour Stein

 * Comment Expanded it and added some references. Think it's more or less ready.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now. BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Aston by-election

 * Oppose and defer to DYK. It's an absolute fantastic DYK hook, but still just a routine by-election for one legislative seat for ITN purposes. Courcelles (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A simple by-election. Sure, it's an over a century achievement but it's still just for a single seat. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is one seat out of 151 in one legislature of one country. While it might have been an upset, this still has no real significance except for this very small area of Australia.
 * I'd suggest proposing this for DYK. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - while I am in favour of posting some sub-national elections, individual constituency by-elections are still well below the radar. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but definitely submit to DYK! -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023

 * Wait - Tornado outbreak is nowhere near done yet. Article is way to barebones to nominate. Mjeims (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - 21 deaths and climbing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">King O' Fools Talk 19:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - storms in the spring and other normal things. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * still opposed, you have this youre going to be the weather channel the rest of the spring/summer. Yes, its sad, no it isnt anything out of the ordinary or so widely covered it should be on the main page as something people have seen in the news and want more information on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait – Extent of impact is unclear as the outbreak is ongoing. We'll be able to better assess tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb – the impacts are indeed extensive and with the previous outbreak still fresh on ITN it seems reasonable to combine them. We'll have to wait and see if we have to go for a triple on Tuesday. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Plus the forecast is suggesting an even worse series of tornadic storms on Tues-Wed, this one to focus in slightly higher latitudes. It has been an exceptional winter and spring. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support  I was considering nominating this, but decided to wait until more damage occurs to get a better chance of pushing this true. Now its at six deaths, and has also affected 165 K customers. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to wait, per others. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support @Vanilla Wizard's blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We are already blurbing a similar tornado outbreak which happened recently and so it would be excessive to have a second blurb. Just update the first blurb or replace it with an Ongoing link to a more encyclopedic article like Tornadoes in the United States which explains that "...they are most common in spring ... Because spring is a transitional period for the climate, there are more chances of cooler air meeting with warmer air, resulting in more thunderstorms."  Note that it's similar here in the UK where we have had a spate of hail, heavy rain and thunderstorms lately.  This is not especially new, "March brings breezes loud and shrill, stirs the dancing daffodil." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose without fatalities. And per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s at least six confirmed dead. The Kip (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Support combined blurb as per @Vanilla Wizard PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose While now 11 have been confirmed dead, this is typical damage of a tornado outbreak for this time of year, and given that it was broad across multiple states, it is nowhere near the density that the previous outbreak that we covered had. --M asem (t) 16:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Tragic to be sure, but this is just not that far out of the ordinary for these sorts of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The death toll is now at 21 and likely to climb. The number of injuries and extent of damage has sadly moved this into the realm of a fairly major disaster. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nom says 600 injuries, article says ">70". That's a massive gap that fundamentally changes the importance of this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Standalone Blurb While numbers like these would crush the InedibleHulk MCE Bar of Approval, they still fall way short on my Biologically Induced, Growingly Recurrent, Horribly Ordinary Natural Disaster Assessment (BIG RHONDA). Is there a twist? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, which is still on ITN right now, resulted in 22 fatalities +2 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 24 confirmed deaths) and >31 injuries. The nominated article states that the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 resulted in >17 fatalities +3 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 20 confirme deaths) and >87 injuries. I think it would be difficult to argue at this time that the March 31 to April 1 outbreak was less notable on the grounds that it was less destructive, as the two seemed more or less equally devastating. Would it be possible to consolidate the two tornado-related blurbs? <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> 💙 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like:
 * A series of tornado outbreaks in the United States from March 24 to April 1 leave at least 44 people dead.
 * A bit wordy, but more concise than having two separate blurbs. <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> 💙 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I like it. It also gave us a chance to picture the Turing Award winner, who  got shafted. "Kill" is shorter than "leave dead", I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also like combining the two tornado events. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also support combined blurb. Another outbreak is currently in the forecast for Tuesday, and if that turns out to also be major then it might complicate things slightly, but for now this seems like the most elegant solution. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb as the death tolls for both is significant. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb per above. Should there be an image for this one, like tornado damage or something? I'm heading to Sullivan, Indiana, a town that was hit by an EF3 tornado during the outbreak, so if I manage to take photos of the damage there, it could be used! Tails   Wx  01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A combined blurb seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb Makes the most sense in this situation. Kafoxe (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We have been very wary of combined disparate storm systems in the past, since we cannot claim causality between the events. Combining the blurbs is not a smart idea. If it were the case that, say, a weather system dropped torandoes in some states and later massive flooding in others, that would be reason to combine the blurbs. But two systems separated by a week isn't something we should be combining. --M asem (t) 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The alternative is axing the first one and replacing it with the new one to maintain balance while keeping them separated. I agree it's not ideal meteorology-wise (I've been against it in the past many times) but in this case it seems appropriate, especially with a third outbreak looming on the horizon. Would wording it more explicitly help? "Two tornado outbreaks on March 24–27 and March 31 – April 1 leave at least 40 people dead in the United States." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and we should probably let editors know that another outbreak is anticipated for April 4th, so we may need to expand further in a "week-long" outbreak early next week. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support either individual or combined blurbs. This outbreak has enough to stand alone, but with the earlier outbreak and the potential for another major, newsworthy outbreak this coming Tuesday it may be prudent to combine blurbs. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined or separate blurb. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Important Clarification. As noted (but seemingly ignored) previously, there is no basis for the 600+ injuries claim. This is not substantiated by the target article, and rather, the first linked source notes that 600 was a prior estimate that was not substantiated. I have adjusted the above blurbs accordingly. I Support a blurb in general, but particularly would lean towards the combined blurb proposal. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Combined with the understanding that we may need to expand in a few days (another widespread outbreak is anticipated). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined, the disaster has now become a significant event. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)