Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2022

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

(Posted) RD: Elizabeth Bailey

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 06:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Lapide

 * Long enough with 600+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Deployment of footnotes seems adequate. (I have to AGF all non-English sources.) This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 09:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Noel Menezes

 * Support. The article looks up-to-par. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Luke Bell

 * Please be reminded that the Discography should be fully sourced and there should be some well-developed prose -- 171 words would be too stubby. Please expand this wikipage and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Length now ok at 361 words of prose, the Discography section still needs more sources, please. --PFHLai (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Discography section still needs more sources. Please add more REFs. -- PFHLai (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost there. Can someone give this one final push? I have no clue about this topic unfortunately, but, was able to fill the discography references and it is almost complete. All that is pending is to add a source for the stated fact that Scott Fund was the director of Luke Bell's music video Where ya been? Can one of you take a look at this one? Ktin (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Folks, we have 20 minutes and one CN tag and that too an orthogonal one (which can even be deleted if needed) to get this one onto the homepage. Anyone knowledgeable enough to fill the CN tag? Ktin (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Steep fall in US life expectancy

 * Support, but I think that this probably won't get consensus. It is a major story nonetheless, although the life expectancy being what it was in 1996 provides a sense of perspective. I was too young to have any memories from that year, but I am willing to bet that most people didn't consider life expectancy to be low then. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close oh no, the end of the world! Come on, life expectancy has dropped worldwide as a result of the pandemic. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really earth shattering news M asem (t) 21:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I can kinda see an argument for it, but it doesn't really seem like significant news, especially when it's already been falling. The Kip (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed story only covers one country. As mentioned by Alsoriano97, it's likely Covid reduced life expectancy in many/most countries around the world. Therefore there doesn't seem to be any good reason why Wikipedia should publish an ITN item about one particular country's fall in life expectancy but ignore the other 99% of countries on the planet. Chrisclear (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a much steeper decline in the US than most other developed countries. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * given that the US had one of the higher covid infection rates, this result on steeper life expectancy is not a surprise. M asem (t) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To see some comparisons with other countries see BMJ. The US suffered badly with countries like Bulgaria and Russia while in some countries such as Norway and New Zealand, life expectancy went up. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those countries are not a good comparison though. Bulgaria, Norway and New Zealand have small populations, Russia is a different kettle of fish altogether with very specific reasons for their long ongoing decline in life expectancy. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that data about countries other than the US is readily available, why did you propose a blurb about life expectancy in the US and exclude every other country? Chrisclear (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe because this was data released from the CDC in the US and news organizations have reported on it? There is nothing wrong with proposing an ITN item relating to a single country. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree in a more general sense that there is nothing wrong with proposing an ITN item relating to a single country. However in this situation, its a phenomenon that clearly relates to more than just the one country nominated. This nomination is just as nonsensical as a hypothetical nomination about the decline in life expectancy in Bulgaria only. Chrisclear (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. It's notable that a developed country like the United States has had such a steep fall in life expectancy that other developed liberal democracies have not experienced. If the UK had experienced a steep drop and the United States did not, I would propose posting this here, too. Either way, this isn't going to be posted, so someone should just close the discussion. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Life expectancy will start falling everywhere because many countries will have or be close to peaking as to how long a human can live in general.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A factoid in the global picture, and it may be an ephemeral one. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the updated material? The proposed blurb links to United States, but there is no relevant updating the past two days. This is not a valid ITN nom. Please propose a blurb with a link to an updated wikiarticle. Maybe Demographics of the United States???? Not sure.... maybe too US-centric a topic for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a statistical anomaly that will even out over time, no real target to consider --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Thomas

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don L. Lind

 * Was just nominating this. I have added a couple of sentences on his death, will look to see if there are more sources - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, looks like there is no more detail than that I have already added - Dumelow (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support unequivocally. Polyamorph (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape and is interesting. Skynxnex (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve White

 * Comment: On the borderline of what I'd consider "too brief" (3 well-formed paragraphs is typically the minimum standard). Can anything else be said about his career, specifically the regular season in 1999 when he was a regular starter? With another sentence or two, weak support (with possible upgrade to full support depending on amount of info added).  Spencer T• C 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , never before have I heard "three well-formed paragraphs". This is short but not a stub. I'll try to add a little more, but I am also taking a weekend trip for Labor Day weekend and will have limited time the next couple days. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified that that is my minimum standard based on my reading of WP:ITN. Per that, "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs." Specifically for RDs, since the "event" is the whole person's life, I take that to be the minimum length for any article posted to ITN. Other minds may disagree with the application to RDs, but I've found it a good rule of thumb for depth for a whole article, and I cannot recall us posting an article to RD that was not at this length at minimum. On re-assessment of the article, including your recent additions, seems to meet that minimum standard, so support.  Spencer T• C 21:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fauziyya Hassan

 * Support No Reason to oppose Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few unsourced titles in the "Television" and "Short film" sections, although besides that the article looks good. It also needs to be updated. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an orange Lead too short tag. Can the intro be beefed up, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi PFHLai, I've expanded the lead. I couldn't source the last three titles in the filmography section.  These could just be commented out until sourced, if it will hold up posting - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the expansion, Dumelow. Yes, unverified items are often removed. --PFHLai (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi PFHLai, I've removed these uncited ones - Dumelow (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted Blurb) RD/Blurb: Mikhail Gorbachev

 * Support blurb The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Arguably one of the most important figures of the 20th century XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article is up-to-date, then I'd Support blurb on this. --  AxG /  ✉  20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Huge figure with a good article. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a clear-cut case. No further discussion needed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Fills in the Mandela/Thatcher argument. No discussion or debate IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I don't think we even need to try arguing over the merits of a blurb on this one.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: fits all the boxes.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support The man bridged the gap between the antiquity of the Cold War and the decades to come afterward—and there is no question to his influence. 2600:1700:7869:9DDE:C90E:3439:478B:ED1C (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb no debate. One of the most important political figures of the last century. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * but let's not forget that the quality of the article is still not optimal. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Never heard of him. Can we please stop adding every president from god know's where just because they reached old age. Aroots (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I usually don’t make these type of replies, but I have to. This was one of the world’s most influencial and important leaders in the 20st century. Please tell me you are joking. BastianMAT (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this was a pointy !vote - Floydian τ ¢ 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Trolling. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User had only a handful of edits including a few prods, and knows how to add inline formatted refs, hmmm [eye roll] Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read -> TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He's a very important figure. He was the last leader of the USSR, and helped with perestroika. Dennis Dartman (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't make me tap the sign...
 * Do not add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per above, and suggest quick WP:SNOW action. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb For obvious reasons. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb Recommend photo replace that of Ruto. The Kip (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a bit late, but no one commented on article quality. Howver, aside from one CN and the works lisy, this is all fine and clearly fine to post. But please remember to comment on quality if you have taken a look. M asem  (t) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, agree with proposal to change the photo, also agree that we should continue to monitor and improve the article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. A very influential figure in world history and politics. Vida0007 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support—if there was ever anything so obvious, and it's nice to see that this was blurbed already, so quickly.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightWolf1223 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;Enormously influential world leader. "Did somebody say 'birth marks'?" Kurtis (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support In his time I'm certain that his influence is huge through the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PP Support pile on vote. Obviously one of the three or four most influential figures of the late 20th century. Article quality is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest close Support blurb, as indeed is the unanimous and ongoing view. It's unlikely that when Russia wakes up there will be objections, so before this non-controversial proposal gets overly long - why so many post-posting supports? - I think it's safe to close this. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19 pandemic

 * Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by). -- 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to say now, but monkeypox will probably not spread in such extent as Covid, it is not a new, unresearches disease. "given that MPV spreads primarily through close contact, it is less efficient at spreading between humans." . Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that may be true, but the fact is that monkeypox has been dominating the headlines. Whether or not it's due to media hysteria induced by the impact of prior pandemics is up for debate, of course. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per the requirement that The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. The article is not regularly updated and there are other crises now which appear much more frequently in the news than covid. Polyamorph (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I think removal would be the right thing to do. Keeping this up is like if we kept Climate change up because it is ongoing forever. There has to be a point in time where the event is not receiving regular updates and I believe we have reached that point. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think removal is wrong thing to do. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's time. The disease has effectively become endemic and the main article is not receiving the level of updates expected for an ongoing. Any major developments in this story can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through routine nomination and discussion process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't declared endemic by WHO. Once it is declared, then we can pull it from ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there are Covid waves still, in some countries it is influential. Let's look at TheGuardian home page. . What are the main sectons above? World, UK, Coronavirus. If one of the most reliable sources thinks it still important, we shouldn't remove it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are eight more main sections, so I feel you just stopped there for effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But Coronavirus is specifically the third most important topic listed there, more important than football (in UK website, yeah). We follow reliable source in terms of coverage when we consider news for blurb, then we need to look at whether the setion is in constant focus on RS. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look at that so-called "Coronavirus" section while I was arbitrarily stopped. What percentage of its current news stories do you think are primarily filed under a more topically appropriate section's name and just happen to also mention The Big C for background? That's right, 72.727%! Chinese heat wave, French Disneyrail outage, 1982 Australian murder...think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your number representative? How many news items did you check? On the contrary, it gives many new items, as well as one of the most important topics now - vaccinations.  For vaccinations alone the topic shouldn't be removed from ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I sampled all eleven, sir; three were positive. Of the two you show me now, one (already checked) is primarily Global development (that ongoing North-South divide). The other one (from August 20) looks legit, a Coronavirus topic, four of twelve. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, the news items that are onfront page are not a proper sample - it is more deductive to see news for a longer period. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't test the front page, just the COVID section. But yeah, I suppose a larger study is a better study. Not sure how I feel about pushing nasal vaccines, though, I'll sleep on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening, yes, but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. Noah Talk 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for all the reasons in the previous nom where there was obvious consensus to remove and a rogue admin disregarded the same. Opposes which disregard In_the_news guidelines are rightly ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * " Opposes which disregard In_the_news guidelines are rightly ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus." There are plenty of opposes in the section below. I think that they have enough motivation and that arguments are convincing. Which opposes disregard guidelines? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It has receded from the news, it cannot stay up indefinitely, and it is not receiving a sufficient level of updates. I am not convinced by arguments that sub-articles are being updated.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - it's no longer resulting in daily blurb-worthy news as it once was. Levivich 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. If we were to keep it in purely because the WHO still defines it as a pandemic, we’d have the AIDS pandemic listed; if we kept it wholly because it’s still happening, we’d have climate change listed, and that was literally shot down yesterday. The Kip (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - multiple things can be true at the same time. a) much of the world has moved on, at least surfacially b) the article itself, as a few folks have noted, is not seeing many edits c) not many of our readers are clicking that link on the homepage, btw. 60k across a month is arguably a small number d) but, COVID is still an epidemic and has not been downgraded to endemic as a few editors have noted e) scratch the surface and you will note that across the globe we really have not returned to the normal (perhaps we never will, who knows) f) there are still many evolving guidelines and actions that are happening across the globe even if not in some of the countries that we are in. With all of this, I recommend either wait until September 15/16 when the next clickstream data comes in and/or update the link to timeline of COVID events -- something like this (or perhaps something better) which might be more pertinent than our current link perhaps? Good luck and be kind. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Polyamorph. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per usual et al. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per InedibleHulk. GoldenRing (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this is long overdue. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose is still a pandemic, however much it may behave like an endemic virus. We should have waited for a WHO statement confirming this and put an end to the pandemic declaration. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WHO rightfully isn't concerned about whether or not a topic is in the news or whether it receives regular updates. But that does mean that by the time WHO sees fit to declare COVID-19 endemic, the news will have long stopped covering it, and a section labeled "In The News" on Wikipedia would look particularly archaic in having waited so long to make a decision. Similar lack of coverage was present on ITN when Ebola and Zika were declared to no longer be PHEICs. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When WHO sees it fit to be declared, the news will cover WHO decision, of course, with some retrospective in-depth articles. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Shenzhen apparently just went into lockdown per Reuters, I think it's too early for this to be removed. There should be no rush for an encyclopedia to make this change when the pandemic is still ongoing, there will come a day when that is no longer the case but not yet. Covid is still in an acute phase, it has not yet become merely chronic like the HIV example. - Indefensible (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's still a thing that affects a lot of people, with daily infection rates above half a million. Many news articles are still being produced about it, so it's in the news. Aren't those the only two criteria? — VersaceSpace  🌃 18:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See In the news, which details the criteria. Noah Talk 18:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. It is still a pandemic and it is still in the news. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this is long, long overdue. Covid is no longer news, it's an endemic disease world-wide, and will remain so. This is akin to keeping a link to Malaria as Ongoing in ITN, which kills millions of people every year. --Soman (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't lockdowns because of Malaria or debates at national level about whether to do restrictions in the autumn because of it. Unlike with Covid. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still happening isn't part of the criteria. Articles are NOT posted because the event is still happening. It's required to have regular, substantial updates contained new, pertinent information. Noah Talk 19:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I pointed out that it is noremotely similar to malaria. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * two years of pandemic for you to say this? Not the same. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The WHO is unlikely to declare it endemic, but COVID isn’t in the news anymore. 58-59% of Americans don’t view COVID as a threat. It just isn’t discussed anymore, and In The News doesn’t mean Broadcasting COVID-19. 47.19.209.230 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * support removal It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was just the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again. Consensus was clear then and it is in this reset Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I checked my country's national news sources and (to my genuine surprise) there isn't actually any updates about COVID on the front page anymore. YD407OTZ (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I know the goal was to keep this up for a while, worth noting there's a pretty clear consensus in favor of removal at the moment. The Kip (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the consensus that you claim to see. I see a lot of people overly eager to get rid of this from ongoing for no good reason. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact remains all these oppose votes not addressing the criteria will be ignored. Still happening is not a criteria. Regular, substantial updates which add new, pertinent information is a criteria and one that has not been met as of late. Noah Talk 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it is still in the news. If the BBC and the Guardian can both find enough material to maintain entire news website sections about it, it's still very much in the news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal' -- COVID-19 is still in the news, and thousands are still dying daily. Not time to remove it yet, there's no reason to remove it just because a small segment of the Wikipedia community wants to pretend COVID-19 doesn't exist anymore. It does, and it's not endemic. Also, articles linking to COVID-19 are still being regularly updated. See here -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is pretending it doesn't exist. I actually have covid right now. It simply isn't in the news the way it was. In terms of deaths, road accidents are killing more people daily than covid. But we don't have road collisions in ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got that statistic, but it's not true. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Say's who. 3500 road deaths per day. Currently 7-day average covid deaths are 2,115 (from the google case tracker). Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's not true". I'm going to do a piece of talk-space original research WP:SYNTH here: The number of worldwide deaths from Covid in the week to 24 August was 14,000. If we extrapolate that over a whole year (52 weeks) then that gives 728,000 Covid deaths annually. Now according to our article List of countries by traffic-related death rate, the global road death total in 2016 was 1,350,000. It's unlikely that's particuarly different right now, so it does seem quite likely that the road death toll is indeed higher right now than the Covid toll. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're referring to worldwide, which does not include many COVID-19 deaths in less-developed countries. Nonetheless, the average number of deaths per day on the road in the US was 102 per day in 2016, while the number of deaths per day in the US for COVID-19 is currently 387, more than 3 times more. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You explicitly said thousands are dying daily, which is global stat. The global statistics reveal this is lower than road fatalities. Polyamorph (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We would need to hold a discussion to determine if the criteria covers child articles as well. As written and generally interpreted currently, it does not. I might as well start a RfC on the talk page now. Noah Talk 21:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal - I suggested this some time ago but was over-ruled. No longer headline news. — Voice of Clam 21:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal the message now is we just "live with it". Certainly if we get a shitty new mutation which evades vaccinations and causes massive mortality, we can re-visit this (if anyone's left alive to deal with it), but in the meantime, it's just background deaths, like gun-crime in the US.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, as per my comments yesterday in my request to reinstate it. The pandemic is still the subject of ongoing news and COVID-19 has not yet been declared endemic. Pandemics are not inherently open-ended; someday it will be over. But the expectation that the pandemic is almost over has been around almost as long as the pandemic has, and every prediction so far has been premature. I don't think the pandemic should stay on here forever, but I don't think this is the time to remove it. Tisnec (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, “it’s still going on” is not a criteria on WP:ITNR. The Kip (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still receiving news coverage, though, which satisfies WP:ITNCRIT - "the event is appearing currently in news sources". It's definitely less news than before, and I think we're close to a notability tipping point, but I've seen several stories just today. The only other necessary criterion is consensus, which is what we're debating here. Tisnec (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait I don't oppose the removal but I want to reiterate that there are waves of COVID in Asia, in particular Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong (tied to the rise of COVID in Shenzhen), Vietnam, Taiwan and Singapore. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal&mdash;Basically endemic at this point; no longer a constant news story like it used to be. Kurtis (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning support for removal at this point. BD2412  T 23:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Might I suggest a compromise? Why not point to the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic for each month? That is receiving daily updates, and so fits the criteria. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That article is a reference implementation of WP:PROSELINE it's a daily ticker with nothing really new or pertinent in it. It's excellent evidence for why this story is no longer suitable for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose of WP:ONGOING is so that the same basic story doesn't continuously take up a line in T:ITN at the expense of other blurbs. The oldest blurb there is from August 14, more than two weeks old; and as I said in the previous discussion, not only hasn't there been a COVID-related story we would have been reasonably likely to blurb since then, there hasn't been one since July 6.  The normal process can handle a COVID item every two months or so just fine; what ongoing is for is when there's blurbs we'd post every week or more.  Remove. —Cryptic 01:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per previous rationale. Also the article in the nomination is incorrect; that article isn't actually in ITN, but rather a related article on the pandemic. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, though I won't lose sleep if it happens. As I said yesterday, the pandemic is still active, I'm still seeing stuff in the news, and I feel adverse to calling this endemic before the WHO does. Certainly, World War II managed to stay in the news for a good 6 years; what's 2.5 years to COVID? -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Removing doesn't mean it's over, just that it has passed below the threshold where it is generating continuous high-profile news stories. I think it has gone past that point, and we can always re-nominate it if circumstances change. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:E4BB:94FE:3CFC:3F99 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The event is current and globally significant. As long as the article remains updated, the ongoing status applies. STSC (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem is the article hasn’t remained updated. The Kip (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article in question should be COVID-19 pandemic, not COVID-19 as per nom and which people here are presumably referring to. Redthreadhx (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal Article not being regularly updated, with relevant sub-articles (Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2022 I presume?) not meeting ITN suitability criteria (bulleted single sentences with a lot of CN tags. Whether the topic is still "in the news" or "still notable enough for ongoing" are immaterial without appropriate and sufficient article updates. I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination.  Spencer T• C 07:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I can speak for all of us when we say that we accept your apology! -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * “All of us,” he says, as consensus runs about 2:1 in favor of removal. The Kip (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with accepting his apology? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No need. It was a good pull, consensus remained strong even after the pull until a rogue admin yeeted it back into the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes, LaserLegs, NO this was not a good pull. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to apologise, but the fact that you have demonstrates how good an admin you are. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel you have nothing to apologize for. Consensus was just as clear then as it is now. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's the 'glamour' commanding officers from the wild west era of 15+ years ago who often try to pull faits accompli on everyone that is the problem, especially when they don't participate on a routine basis but carpetbag in to impose their choice on the 'glamour' topics. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support removal, in terms of news coverage this is nothing compared to what it was before / during the vaccine rollout. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal as I have done previously, per ONGOING. The article linked has not received significant updates - Dumelow (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another comment - this request for comment should probably be brought to the wider community. I notice a lot of people commenting for and against in the previous removal discussion who have not yet commented here. No matter the outcome of this, someone is sure to want to bring this to WP:DRV or something. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this is the ITN discussion page for items in the box. We don't need to WP:CANVAS more "oppose" !votes from people who don't bother to read the guidelines we have enough already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to adding this to WP:CENT. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal - COVID has turned into a background story at best, and unless a new wave begins to spike up it will stay that way. Regardless, as per WP:ONGOING "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Updates to the article have become irregular at best. Prism55 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal: This is still a major issue in the world, especially in SE Asia. Its economic and political effects are still very much being felt. And are likely to again in Europe/America this winter. Plenty of coverage of new vaccines etc. 2A02:A03F:61B7:5B00:84C5:B0F7:9195:2BFD (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal per above. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some 3,600 words later, posts running over 2:1 in favor of removal. Consensus? – Sca (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no rush whatsoever to remove this from ongoing. It's worth it to let everyone have a chance to participate even if their participation is unlikely to change the result. Have patience. Let the world turn at least once. 24hrs, even 48, is not that long. Levivich 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand that the first pull was rushed, but we’re at a full day of discussion with a pretty overwhelming consensus. I don’t see much of a point in dragging things out longer than they need to be. The Kip (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're at a full day now when you posted your reply; we weren't at a full day yet two hours ago when I posted the comment you're replying to. In those two hours, three new people participated (two supports, one oppose), who would not have had the opportunity to do so had this been closed two hours ago. That's valuable in and of itself; can't you see that? I can show you innumerable examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too soon. Can you show me any examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too late? What is so hard about the concept of allowing (at least) 24hrs so that everyone in the world has a chance to participate? And what is with this obsession by some with commenting about when it's time to close? Do we think that, unless someone says "this should be closed now", the closers won't know when to close? All these comments do (mine here included) is needlessly add to the text on the page, to the watchlist, to the edit history. There is no need to rush. Levivich 16:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the pandemic is still ongoing and there are still developments. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal - having just now read WP:ITNCRIT, I'm not seeing how the level of continual background activity rises to that point. For all effective purposes, this has moved into recurrent rotation now. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal: What a coincidence, someone on the TV News was discussing yesterday exactly this, that COVID is mostly over by now and there are hardly any more news to it. And, as pointed, the article should be having frequent news-related updates, and this one is not. The opposes that say "it's still going on at Foo" should check the criteria in WP:ONGOING. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With 712,000 new cases yesterday, "mostly over" sounds optimistic. However, since they're mainly the Omnicron variant that's less debilitating, it does seem the global crisis is ebbing at present. -- Sca (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unless there's some noteworthy global development that makes sense to add again.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage, even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted (e.g. there were two articles about Covid on the the front page of the Guardian website this morning). The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people (or some governments) like to pretend it is. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more worried about CC than the pandemic. 104/40 due where I live today. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Cool, so where does WP:ONGOING mention "sub-articles" and can you highlight a recent update for "new, pertinent information"? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Removal I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The update vaccines being available is a fact that is of interest to many, right? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. While certainly things related to COVID will continue to be newsworthy, those can be handled as individual ITN items rather than a permanent placement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it's 24 hours in. By a straight !vote count it's 32 support and 15 opposed (very high participation for ITN). The Oppose (or keep) camp points out mainly that the pandemic is still happening. The Support (or remove) camp agrees but points out that the story is stale, getting only statistic updates for a long time now. WP:ONGOING applies. Time to call it --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the rush? You seem to be afraid that others will come by and oppose removal. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 24 hours is the frequently proposed but never officially adopted "minimum wait" and there is a clear consensus. Time to act --LaserLegs (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see overwhelming consensus worthy of pulling this now. What is the harm of waiting a few more days? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are in opposition to removal. You have posted on this thread 11 times. You are not a neutral arbiter here. The consensus is what it is, and there has been plenty of time allotted for opinion in this nom and the prior.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I hardly call 66% support to be "consensus" on something like this. But even if it is, you haven't answered my question. The consensus is not overwhelming, so WP:SNOW doesn't apply, and there's no harm in waiting this out a few more days. Patience, please. Why does it matter if this stays on for a while longer? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If 2/3 of all participants does not reflect "consensus" then nothing would ever get done here. There is no question of harm, there is a question of reasonable and ordinary practice. A nomination that is open for 24 hours, has 66% support and extremely high participation is absolutely a mandate for closure and acceptance. Keeping the nomination open, with the hope that canvassing may drop the majority a bit actually would be harmful. I'm readding the "Needs attention" header for admin consideration. Please allow an ADMIN to make the decision on whether to act.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are not many updates now, the editors can update the articles. There are new lockdowns and discussions on impact of possible measures. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been discussed for removal from Ongoing several times over the past months and the updates you are suggesting have not since happened. For all those who continue to insist it should not be removed, why have very few of said editors updated the article to meet the Ongoing standards? That someone may eventually make an update is simply not good enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another comment For what it is worth, the headline story on the New York Times is the updated vaccine being approved, while the second story involves the US's steep decline in life expectancy (lowest since 1996) due mostly to COVID-19. Not that this changes the ITN criteria, but to say it is not "in the news" still is simply not true. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support for removal, or updating to a current timeline article per Ktin's suggestion above. COVID-19 is still a big part of what's happening in the news, but a developing-story enthusiast (or whoever actually clicks ITN links) is not going to find what they're looking for in the linked article. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: Regarding the suggestion that we should ignore contributors who "disregard In_the_news guidelines" for purposes of evaluating consensus, I would just like to point out that (a) ITN does not appear to be a guideline, (b) even if it was, guidelines derive their authority, if any, from consensus and therefore agreement with them cannot be used as a precondition to determining consensus, and (c) in general, excluding voices from the discussion is harmful to the project and the community and should be done only when strictly necessary (e.g. when there is evidence of actual manipulation, or some other reason to believe that a particular sample of Wikipedians is unrepresentative). The power of consensus comes precisely from the pressure it creates to find better and more nuanced solutions (or, as some poli sci folks would say, "increase the dimensionality of the policy space"); relieving that pressure by excluding inconvenient voices does no one any favors. I am but a humble rando, and this is but a minor issue in this case, but those are my thoughts on the matter. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." is a direct quote. Not sure what else to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Either we have guidelines and we enforce them, or we don't. The latter is anarchy. The former is constricting, but we can change consensus through open-ended discussions such as through WT:ITN. We don't do it through individual case studies. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court system. One case doesn't set precedent over long-established guidelines and practices. It takes broad consensus to change practices and guidelines. Consensus of that nature can't be achieved in a discussion about an item on ITN. <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 19:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This site is not exactly a democracy as some like to believe it is. This is why there are no precise requirements for consensus. Personally, I do not believe ~66% of votes for something is consensus at all, but the failures of the article to be updated to Ongoing standards is not a matter of opinion. If an article is not being updated enough than the debate over the event being ongoing doesn't just mean very little, quite frankly it means nothing at all. I do not believe anyone who has opposed posting has offered an opinion as to why the article is actually meeting these standards, nor have the proper actions been taken to elevate the article to said standards. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support removal - I just don't see that this topic is very in the news anymore, from the perspective of our target audience: people looking to find an encyclopedia article written in English about something they came across in the news. — xaosflux  Talk 18:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Vaccine topic is pretty much in the news. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything worth nominating? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this about a guy paddling down the Missouri River in a giant hollowed-out pumpkin? -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fails 'MURICA, MINIMUMDEATHS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – So, after 28 hours, we're up to 5,700 words. Enough is never enough? – Sca (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Patience, please. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a day to marinate on WP:CENT and see if we get any outside input. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal With almost all lockdowns ended, covid has become yet another everyday disease - dangerous and appearing yes, but it's certainly cannot be reasonably described as being "in the news". HIV and malaria isn't in the news. Gaioa  (T C L) 19:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, per all above. We can still post related news as independent items. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. I think the consensus has become clearer now after a prolonged debate. --Tone 19:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a vote count? I think support had the majority but not sure it had consensus. -  Indefensible (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Might want to close this before someone YOLOs it back into the box to force the same outcome a third time --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. -- like shouting into the wind at this point, but no. We should have waited for longer. But whatever. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't you opposed 3 or 4 times already? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Christian Ströbele

 * Comment Added some references. Added myself to updaters. Grimes2 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Other Activities section could probably be turned into 2 prose sentences at the end of an existing section but otherwise article is in good shape.  Spencer T• C 04:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Fine article, great update! - I'd give it more lead if I had time, and the sentence about his successor has no ref, but I don't care about that bit. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlbi Dean

 * Think the referencing is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support looks good.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abhijit Sen

 * Comment: Lede states that he was involved in the Planning Commission (India) but I see no description of this in the body of the article.  Spencer T• C 04:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is done. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough to qualify (600+ words of prose). Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig doesn't really have any complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Zampese

 *  Oppose  At a minimum the stats tables are unsourced (and possibly also WP:UNDUE/uncommon for assistant coaches).—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think I should source the tables or remove them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with removing it. —Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the tables. Do you think the article is good enough for RD now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I struck my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support After some spot checks, seems adequately sourced and good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issue Bagumba opposed for. Do you support now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19

 * Oppose; in countries still tracking Covid-19 in a reasonable way, the statistics are still high. The US reported approximately 500 daily deaths over the last week. It's also still in the news, much more so than car accidents or flu or cancer or any of our other shared ills. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And it will likely be in the news for the next 10 years as the world calculates the social, economic and health cost of Covid and assess global/regional responses. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like debates on these are becoming more frequent while we still don't know how long an item can be considered ongoing, so I opened up a discussion on the talk page to clarify some things if possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is still causing widespread effects in China which still having downstream effects on world markets. M asem (t) 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I was on the fence last time because the world was seeing a bit of a wave from the latest subvariant but seeing how almost no major jurisdiction made any changes to their public health policy, except continue to remove covid-era restrictions, covid as it stands now is firmly in the past. Apart from news outlets reporting readily available stats, like a stock ticker, there hasn't been any notable developments in months. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – In the past month, there has only been one substantial update to the article, and this update was not related to current events (such as direct impact). If the article is no longer actively seeing news-related updates, we should indeed remove it from our ITN box. This is not related to how much impact the pandemic is still having. The issue is that we are not covering the impact in the linked article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will note, for example, that quite a few "as of ..." sentences are dated to 2020 or 2021. We might need to be concerned about the article being outdated. I have no idea if this is an actual issue for the article, but it doesn't feel suitable for ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. We cannot have it on ITN forever and, as mentioned above, there are no day-to-day updates to the articles as typically required for ongoing items. Yes, it made sense to have it on for way longer than any other ongoing item, but at some point we should drop it. Our readers know to use the search box if they need info. --Tone 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – S-o-o-o long-term is this topic that I'm not sure Ongoing matters much. OTOH, it does provide a hot button for a topic that affects everyone. On the fence. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Restrictions are continuing to fall, infections have been falling, not much in terms of substantial updates at the 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 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by).--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a single covid item at Portal:Current events/August 2022 that would have gotten a blurb had this not been in ongoing, and only one (on August 15) that wouldn't have gotten snow-opposed. We have to go all the way back to July 6 for an item that we even might have blurbed.  Support. —Cryptic 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – same reasons as why don't we put climate change to ongoing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clickstream data for the month of August is not available as of yet, and will be available on September 15 / 16. I would recommend having a look at that data before acting one way or the other here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like the Invasion of Ukraine, it's not in the news as much but that doesn't mean it's done or over with. MyriadSims (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merely "it's still happening" isn't enough for a slot in Ongoing, and the second bullet point at the documentation at WP:ONGOING addresses this explicitly. —Cryptic 16:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support not really "in the news" much anymore is it? It is endemic now in many places. No longer the crisis it was, now others have taken over. Polyamorph (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I think at this point in time we can remove it from ongoing. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's time. If there is a really major development, we can deal with that on a case by case basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC) signed belatedly
 * Support, endemic disease by now. --Soman (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed Consensus for removal; lack of regular updates to article as required for Ongoing items.  Spencer T• C 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * updates for a topic as big as COVID will be in the sub articles. this will be a similar issue for the Ukraine war. M asem (t) 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I considered this. The issue is that we're not featuring these sub-articles on the front page. Such an indirect way of "featuring" the work of people editing articles like (for example) Chinese government response to COVID-19 (which of course isn't even linked in the main article) is not really reasonable in my opinion. It doesn't serve our readers or our community. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m here to remind you that COVID-19 will be endemic when the WHO declares it so, not when you say so. It’s still a pandemic. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we were to go wholly by the WHO’s definition of events, we would still have the AIDS pandemic listed. Sometimes it’s best to go by the practical reality. The Kip (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and reinstate - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it continues to make the news. Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It should not stay up indefinitely, and it is no longer receiving the regular updates required for Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I personally think it is time to remove as other events have taken far more media coverage and it should not stay perpetually. -- FictiousLibrarian (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse removal - It is clear that restrictions are easing almost everywhere in the world. COVID will likely be with us for a while now, but not to the point that it is affecting everyday life. Interstellarity (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Removal Support Pandemic will continue, but continuous updates have not. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Request to reinstate The pandemic has not ceased to drive news, nor is it an inherently open-ended event (a charge reasonably used elsewhere here to say climate change shouldn't be listed). I believe the decision to remove it from "ongoing" was premature, and that it should be reinstated. Tisnec (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * CBC News doesn't fully reflect the global journalistic scene, of course, but insofar as it does, the pandemic really has ceased to drive. The top health story (currently top overall) is about how much weekly drinking scientists say is too much this week. The only COVID-related homepage headline is about normality's inevitable comeback. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the New York Times has a little covid dashboard not unakin to Wikipedia's "In the news" infobox. (I checked two other sites: The BBC has no covid-related stories on the front page just now; CNN has two). We're probably close to covid not being news anymore - provided it doesn't have any more tricks up its sleeves - but I don't think we're there yet. Tisnec (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Request to reinstate This isn't just premature. While COVID pandemic will go on as a part of our lives, there's an ongoing big wave of COVID in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam (all of which are in around East/Southeast Asia), and while the monkeypox is now a bigger news than COVID, it is not growing that much in Asia as of now. I feel COVID-19 should be considered as ongoing until these waves are put under control and growth of monkeypox in Asia becomes definite. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reinstate until better consensus is achieved The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal. For something like this that has been repeatedly re-litigated on this page over the past several months, I feel like we could stand to get more opinions before making such a contentious change. On substantive grounds, the pandemic is still active, I'm still seeing stuff in the news, and I feel adverse to calling this endemic before the WHO does. Certainly, World War II managed to stay in the news for a good 6 years; what's 2.5 years to COVID? -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reinstate. Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus; item should be reinstated until the discussion has had sufficient time to run its course. For the moment, I oppose removal, per Vanamonde93 and the fact that while the target article is not seeing regular significant updates, the child articles of the target article are, and I believe that is sufficient for the criteria for ongoing to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-removal support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. The Kip (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/lean reinstate Only 20.9% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. (See ref for more stats) In many parts of the world, we're not out of the woods. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support After two years of reminding people about it, yes, the pandemic and its articles still exist and everyone knows where to find them. That was the point, awareness. We thoroughly and completely helped raise it. We did not put an end to death, disease and socioeconomic turmoil. We were never supposed to. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, as I did last time. The article has received precisely zero meaningful content updates in the last month - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Who knows when the pandemic ends, it has been in "current events" for so long. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 07:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-removal support (since apparently some are calling for reinstatement). It's long overdue, the article is no longer receiving substantial update to warrant keeping it in Ongoing. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reinstate. As stated above, four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And as restated immediately above, this new resolution and realization is, following months of trial proposals, similar discussion and (nonbinding) alternative results. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reinstate we can remove this when Covid-19 becomes endemic, which it hasn't, yet. In the meantime, one would be hard-pressed to find any news outlets without daily Covid-related news. Banedon (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd also really have to look for one that doesn't treat it as another bottomless mundane category of news, beside Politics/Government, Weather/Climate and Indigenous/Sports. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many countries are already treating it as endemic in any case. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They're treating the literal virality as endemic. I'd like to think we're focusing on how they're treating the transmission of COVID news. This isn't In The Public Health Sector/C, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite. Although I was responding to the OP who I think was referring to the virus. Polyamorph (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We must remain vigilant, referring to misindentation. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Soz. Yes, Stay alert! Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reinstate. This was a woefully brief discussion which should not have been closed so quickly. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted. The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people like to pretend it is. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those calling on ITN to wait until the virus is declared endemic are forgetting that this section is called "in the news". The criteria for remaining an ongoing item is the determination that there are still regular updates to the target article, and the item has to be pervasively in the news. Those are the only criteria, nothing to do with what the WHO says the virus is or isn't. At this time, these criteria are not being met. The discussion should be closed without reinstatement. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  11:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * REINSTATED - The removal was done very soon after the request was posted, which is very unusual for ITN, given it was not close to SNOW support. Many voices have asked for it to be reinstated, so it should revert back to its default state while further discussion happens. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fuzheado strikes again! 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the guidelines which stipulate a minimum wait for taking action or what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has a wiki lawyering vibe. Anyone who has been active on ITN knows that if you take action on an item within four hours that is not clearly WP:SNOW worthy, then procedurally its legitimacy is going to be highly controversial. The requests to reinstate have been raised by experienced users and reflect this. I don't have a preference on the matter either way. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly straightforward question. What guidelines stipulate a minimum wait, and what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's another unwritten rule, just like the notorious WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. <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 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think WP:CONLEVEL does; just four hours of discussion results in the decision being made among a limited group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That certainly seems relevant in this case. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are asking for policy proof for something that was never asserted. I never said anything was "stipulated" or "policy," only that it was unusual how quickly it was acted on and that many voices objected to this procedural issue. It is the custom of this community that decisions for the ITN box are given enough time so that the consensus is properly determined. The COVID item was removed after a sampling period of less than four hours, resulting in users who noted the short consultation period:
 * "Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case,"
 * "The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal"
 * "Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus"
 * "four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus"
 * "woefully brief discussion"
 * The legitimacy of this forum is lessened when procedures and customs are not followed in the best of faith. A reversion to the prior state/status quo while discussion continues is the most fair and equitable thing to do. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's true that four hours might not be an ideal length of time to judge consensus, at the time you reinstated the item, over 20 hours of discussion had elapsed, and at that point consensus was clearly heavily in favor of removing the item from ongoing. This is where I believe you made your error in judgment. You were weighing consensus based on temporal conditions that existed at the time of removal, and in doing so, imposed a supervote at a time when consensus had become more fleshed out and definitively in favor of removal. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with WaltCip here. A good admin would recognise they've made a mistake assessing the consensus and revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm quite comfortable in restoring the status quo in the name of fairness so that consensus can be properly evaluated. What concerns me is the number of folks who would dispense with good faith community norms in order to fast-track a decision they prefer. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when is calling another admin action a "decision made in poor faith" (your words) consistent with "good faith community norms". Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable? Polyamorph (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have said anything of the sort. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You certainly did. The full quote: Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. The comment is at the top of this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I said the things in bold type. I meant in response to, "Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable?" I never said my actions are "unaccountable" and I don't understand why you would attribute that sentiment to me. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the reactions between the removal and the reinstatement, they are 50/50 in their split on their opinions on the matter. The fact is, it is so FUBAR at this point a close and re-request is likely the only way to properly come to a community decision. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is not the first time that you've made a decision on ITN that in my view appears to go against a clear consensus. It's difficult not to have a knee-jerk reaction. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on. "poor faith"?! You can't possibly mean that. At the risk of sounding self-important, could everyone just chill a little bit?  No one is acting in poor faith, no one is "misusing" the admin bit, we're just (as usual) kind of stumbling towards a solution because the wikipedia way is inherently messy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are you quoting with "misusing?" Apologies if it was me, but I don't recall saying that. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone down below said "abuse of admin privelege" regarding your action. I'm saying Spencer didn't do anything in bad faith, you didn't misuse your bit.  But frankly, I was kind of hoping your very first response would be to say "oh my god, I didn't mean 'poor faith', I meant 'good faith (but incorrect)'". Floquenbeam (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment. I could add "unintentional" abuse, but nevertheless it was a mistake. Polyamorph (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not charging gross misuse or abuse of power, merely that Fuzheado misread and acted against consensus - in good faith. But I still believe this needs to be corrected and the ongoing item should be removed. Even if the discussion is closed with no consensus, it's nearly inevitable that it will be renominated for removal in a month barring some extraordinary development in the virus's progression. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose reinstatement, pull - Just for the record, although I did note that I supported removing this from ongoing earlier. I think Fuzheado acted against consensus, even if the previous removal was technically a bit early.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted by @BilledMammal above, consensus evaluated "technically a bit early" means it's not a proper consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was basically just another the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose reinstatement, pull. Per WaltCip. Yes, the original pull was a little hasty, but we're a day in now and consensus for pulling seems fairly clear in the discussion above so I'm unsure why it was reinstated. I have been reticent to remove covid from ongoing in the past, but the nominator rationale above is sound, and in most parts of the world the ongoing newsworthiness and daily updates are not there. We can always put it back if the pandemic flares up again, and we are not obliged to wait for the WHO. please reconsider, because it will be difficult for any other admin to reverse your decision now. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think reinstatement makes it harder to reverse. It makes it hard to reverse right away, but if the discussion is open a while longer and there's clear consensus for removal, then by definition it isn't wheel warring to reinstate a contested admin action that has broad consensus. It's been on the main page for years, we can afford to let the discussion run a little longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull reinstating was an abuse of admin priviledge, there was clear consensus against doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, reverting a hasty bold move that did not have consensus is not abuse. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting another admin action, against clear consensus, that had further developed, is very poor judgement for an admin. So I disagree. It may be well intentioned, but it is still wrong and you should revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your definition of "clear consensus," is not universally or widely held. And with this much uncertainty and doubt around the removal, a reversion to the status quo is the least controversial and most equitable move one could make while more discussion happens. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you afraid? The least controversial move would have been to leave it alone. Are you completely unaware of how much opposition your action has generated? Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're definitely aware this discussion is recurrent, since last October, not four hours. You even participated. There's nothing hasty about this time, it's just the first time the result wasn't Close. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC
 * Oppose reinstatement, pull Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. <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 13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - (1) Four hours isn't sufficient time to get a true reading of ongoing coverage around the world. (2) The lack of "reinstate" votes following the removal should not be taken as agreement with the removal, as I'm sure most people have found that it is almost always pointless to discuss decisions that have already been made. (3) The accusations of impropriety have also derailed this discussion to the point that it isn't about keeping/removing at this point, so pointing to a "consensus" in a derailed and disjointed discussion means next to nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree; I think at this point the best option is to procedurally close this discussion and open an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's just go ahead and close it as no consensus. What a mess. And it was one that didn't need to happen. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I opened a discussion on WT:ITN regarding minimum length of time for discussions. I didn't call it an RfC because I don't think my wording is neutral enough to declare it one, but if someone wants to suggest how I can polish it up, I don't mind declaring it an RfC.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate Change

 * Support per nom. The Western US drought is a major threat to global food security as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Climate change has been affecting people for years now and it will do so probably for all of our lifetimes. There is no point in adding something to ITN as ongoing if we already know it will never be removed because that's not what ITN is for. Regards So  Why  09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is like the third time an ongoing for CC has been suggested, but it fails as it would be ongoing indefinitely. --M asem  (t) 10:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I know this year new things have happened as climate change becomes more severe, but climate change has been ongoing for years and will probably continue into the future. Would it be suitable, for example, to put car crashes on ITN/Ongoing? EditMaker Me (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. Too broad a topic. Spot news events related to CC would not illustrate the general topic. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(Cancelled) Artemis 1

 * Support because, if successful, it will be the start of further moon exploration and more moon landings. Also, Artemis has a huge impact on other future space missions, such as missions containing extensive exploration of other planets, as finally completing lunar exploration and establishing bases can be a huge help in setting the first foot on Mars. But in general, it is a major event in the history of human exploration of space, since the last moon landing dates back to the early 1970s. --CDE34RFV (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Clearly notable and the article is in good shape. Wait until it's actually launched though. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Many things may happen at and during launch. Wait until it's launched and we have a status report added. Cambalachero (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until launched. After, support. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Troubleshooting of Engine 3 continued as of 12:00. About an hour remains in launch window. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Scrubbed. Oof. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Launch has been scrubbed. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 12:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Liverpool 9-0 Bournemouth

 * Oppose ephemera and probably could/should be deleted Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All previous PL 9-0 results have their own articles. That said, unless it actually broke the record it shouldn’t be making FP. The Kip (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Meh. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., which is an FA, the current nom is a mini-stub with next to no contents. There is currently so little prose and so much blank space. This is not a viable ITN candidate at this time. --PFHLai (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose WP:ROUTINE, normal league match. Not even that rare a scoreline by now. Also we would set a problematic precedent if we start posting normal league matches every time someone gets heavily defeated. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Celtic just beat Dundee United 9-0 away. Match report from The Guardian. Perfect illustration of my point. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also today Montpellier HSC beat Stade Brestois 7-0 away (L'Équipe report) and Union Berlin beat Schalke 04 6-1 away yesterday (Kicker report). This all in one weekend! High score; yes, but out of ordinary; definitely not. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose despite the huge margin of victory, a single match isn't notable enough for this, especially when the scoreline has been achieved four times in the last 20 years. Additionally, this would set a bad precent where any game in any sport that sets a league or competition record for margin of victory could be nominated. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Far better as a DYK, of expanded.
 * M asem (t) 14:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Abcmaxx.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 15:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert LuPone

 * Posted Stephen 23:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Pakistan floods

 * Comment I support this in principle but there are two concerns. First a couple cites needed (tags added). Secondly, we need to clarify that this is an ongoing disaster that is currently "in the news." Would be good if we could add a little meat to the article, but it is adequate in length if the other issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Goes without saying that this is notable thanks to the high number of fatalities. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Super high number of fatalities CR-1-AB (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support and perhaps even ongoing? EditMaker Me (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not seeing any major issues here, article looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article starts by telling us that this started in June, which is when the annual monsoon starts. The bulk of the deaths seem to have occurred in June/July.  The article seems to be a ragbag of incidents across a wide area and period of time.  Perhaps this might work as an ongoing item but this is essentially the southwest monsoon which causes heavy rain and flooding every year and so is routine weather. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * About half the people had been killed in the past two months, the floods have rapidly increased only in the last week with the death toll doubling to the present one and a state of emergency being declared now. The sources in the article make this amply clear. While a routine meteorological event, I am pretty sure a thousand people dying would stand out in any region; also considering that they are the worst floods in over a decade in the country. Gotitbro (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Timely for ITN right now, and definitely notable enough. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly timely, due to the signficant increase in severity recently, and the attendant state of emergency being declared. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality issues... Article needs better sourcing and structure..hard to follow why now is the time for ITN. M asem (t) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely and fairly prominently covered, with fatals totaling about 1,000. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a global disaster and should be on the front page. 3skandar (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Not just a major disaster, but Scientific American says this is a foreshadow of extreme weather events to come as a result of climate change.VR talk 15:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The extreme weather events have already been in evidence all over the world this year. The Scientific American article has a reasonably global perspective, "...But scientists at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva say there's no doubt that higher Atlantic Ocean temperatures contributed to the disaster begun late last month.  Atmospheric anomalies that led to the floods are also directly related to the same weather phenomena that a caused the record heat wave in Russia and flooding and mudslides in western China...".  But our article doesn't say anything about the Atlantic, Russia or China.  It doesn't even mention India, which naturally has monsoon flooding too.  It's presented purely as provincial incidents rather than as a global weather pattern.  Proseline rather than a coherent global narrative. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd support since this is clearly ITN; however, the blurb statement about a national state of emergency does currently not seem to be in the article? I'd think we need at least clarification on that. Currently it's clear to me that this should be ITN right now, but from external sources, not really from the article. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nevermind, a source on that was already in the article, just no prose. I've added a sentence to the lede, and am now supporting. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Notable disaster, notable death toll, article is in good shape. The Kip (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – An adequate 865-word article with a half-dozen geographical sections. – Sca (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – I've posted Alt2.  Schwede 66  19:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is an incoherent mess outlining an event going on for two months without a single date in the scant article body. Almost none of the supports addressed the article quality. It's regrettable that this was posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The declaration of the state of emergency is the event that has led to the nom, so I don't see any issue of eligiblity. The article quality seems acceptable to me, there is enough detail and just one cite tag.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's a collection of factoids that do not tell a coherent narrative. "At least 402 people have been killed and 1,055 have been injured by floods in Sindh." Since when? Until when? "Among the fatalities were three young children, who lost their lives when the roof of their house collapsed in Kandhkot." Tragic, but who cares? Really. "The city of Karachi has not been affected yet by the renewed flooding, but had been affected previously." cool, so not flooded. The whole thing is like that. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Major disaster. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Roland Mesnier

 * Comment: Needs more refs.  Spencer T• C 03:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Aldo Mirate

 * A three-sentence stub? Come on! --PFHLai (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of nominating isn't always to post straight away. It's to highlight and improve articles. I'm sure there are Italian speakers who can help, there are sources on Italian wiki. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am generally supportive of efforts to bring attention to potential candidates here, I'm afraid this one is a little too far off. The article on the Italian wiki is also a stub. --PFHLai (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It can happen. Example: When I nominated Janusz Kupcewicz. It was expanded from almost nothing to a pretty good article, far better than on pl-wiki too. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing you repeat the feat here. Don't forget your other 4x RD noms below. -- PFHLai (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't just me though, there were others helping too. There's nothing wrong with nominating articles that have potential to be improved; if they don't get posted they don't get posted, no harm done, better to nominate on the off chance someone will be able to add and improve then just leave it forever in that state. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No harm was done, Abcmaxx. Please be encouraged to keep nominating. Please also be encouraged to be a bit more "picky". Thank you. -- PFHLai (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you’re doing a good job, but it’s as important to nominate as it is to work on the items you nominate. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jalaluddin Umri

 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage, does not meet 3 paragraph minimum. No clear description of what he accomplished in his role with Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. Some of the works listed lack citations.  Spencer T• C 04:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Slavko Večerin

 * Comment: I may be mistaken, but the Later career section looks to be like a word for word close translation of that I am concerned could be a copyright violation.  Spencer T• C 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Hana Zagorová

 * Oppose article is orange-tagged. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dale Joseph Melczek

 * Support I see no reason to oppose this. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joey DeFrancesco

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steven Hoffenberg

 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giles Radice

 * Comment: At least one CN tag...—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now fully cited. Black Kite (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(Re-posted) 2022 Angolan general election

 * Comment Probably should wait until results are formalized, but the election commisssion has stated they've effectively won. The Kip (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, let's not forget that the results section needs to have prose and include a section on reactions/aftermath. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but after the formal announcement per the blurb wording. (BTW, why that low-res image?  If we want him grinning, there are other choices at commonscat:João Lourenço; the one in his article infobox more closely resembles his state photo and here is a similar, more closely cropped version.)  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  00:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too low-res? It seems fine on my (old and basic, i.e. cheap) monitor. This is fine. I was just looking for a more recent pic. This is another possibility, even more recent, but looks a bit too dark on my monitor.  --PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment what's there is fine, just need a paragraph in the results section, usual "reactions" and good to go. Nice. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once updated per LaserLegs. EditMaker Me (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Once there's some referenced prosed in the 'Preliminary results' section, this gets my support.  Schwede 66  06:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Guardian puts MPLA ahead 52% over Unita's 42% – but results still "provisional." – Sca (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Needs at least a fully-referenced paragraph of prose discussing the results, reactions etc. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be nice to state in the article that Angola does not have a prime minister and that the leader of the winning party becomes the president. Just to make it clear for the readers (the President of Angola explains this but it is a separate article so some digging is needed). Tone 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make that clearer at 2022_Angolan_general_election <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support after results confirmed and article updated. Angola is a major country and wikipedia should give more coverage to events in Africa.VR talk 15:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, we do consistently post sovereign state elections regardless of location. The top/most recent event on ITNR at the moment is the Kenyan presidential election. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Is it worth noting that despite the MPLA's victory, it was their worst showing in an election in Angola? I'm not sure if there's a way to put that in there, but the MPLA's significant loss of seats and UNITA's significant gain of seats seems like it's somewhat noteworthy. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted by Schwede66 - 20:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull article is not ready: there is no prose on the results and no section on reactions/aftermath. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PULL! Article lacks prose results section. Also, when reposted, use alt blurb.  The current blurb implies that the election is illegitimate. Rockphed (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody supported posting this, as all the Support votes were conditional. Yet, this was posted. It makes me pretty curious. 85.241.60.107 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, shouldn't have gone up without a prose summary of the results.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Compare (Pulled) 2021 Portuguese presidential election. 85.240.209.176 (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull. why was this posted without any prose update in the article? It's still not ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pull – Too thin, mostly BG & electoral system. Not enough news. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Per above, a more lengthy and cited update is required. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose' Less than 20 words on what the policy issues, hardly any analysis of the impact/trends in the results. Prose needs to be at least quintupled to even be considered Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reposting support Dege31, Modest Genius and Fm3dici97 have finished polishing the article, which now has Aftermath and Reactions sections and prose in the results, albeit brief. I believe it's now good to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reposted.  Spencer T• C 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert E. Finnigan

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Man of the Hole

 * Support. One unsourced line at the end but otherwise in good shape. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reffed that from the same article as the previous sentence, though I'm not especially impressed that our article cites cracked.com (three times!). —Cryptic 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Would also support a blurb based on him being the last of his tribe, the presumed sole survivor of a genocide. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Interesting, atypical for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I actually came here to make this nomination and am gratified that somebody already did. The Man of the Hole is notable as the last member of his tribe, and the article about him, while short, has ample citations. Tisnec (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb because of Indigenous genocide. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb the death of a people is an apocalypse in itself --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but let's be careful with the wording. For example 'people' is better than 'tribe', which has derogatory connotations in English, and 'Man of the Hole' was not his name. How about the last surviving member of a people destroyed in the genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil dies? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2; Support altblurb2 Thank you Joe for your input. Respect is important. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No name, no age, no job description, just an entire forgotten culture, dead at last, seems inherently remarkable. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support blurb – Sadly, this is hardly a unique situation, with so many thousands of communities wiped out throughout the Amazones. I am extremely appreciative of the way the article has been updated over the past few days, and I think this article is a very solid candidate for a blurb. I will note that Alt2 is a bit ambiguous, as it could be read as "the last survivor of the genocide of Indigenous peoples in Brazil." I don't have good suggestions for rewording it; perhaps "a group" or "a community." ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see the potential for confusion, but it does say "last surviving member of a people destroyed in the genocide ..." The problem with replacing 'people' with 'group' or 'community' is that those would imply a subunit of a larger population, when this man was, as far as we know, the last living representative of an entire ethnic group, with no living relatives, genetic or cultural. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, RD is fine. The genocide occurred in the 1970s, and almost nothing is known about this person's life (not even their name). A strange and interesting article, but this death doesn't reach the Thatcher/Mandela standard for blurbing deaths in old age. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically the genocide began in the 1970s (or earlier) and ended last month, with this man's death. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An act of genocide needs an actor, even allegedly. Whenever the intent stops, so does the genocide. Anyone left is a survivor, free to live till the end, by which time one might take comfort in joining those who didn't make it via self-feathered hammock, far from the whole manmade violent crime system. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Significant development. I would expect to also blurb the passing of the last verifiable survivor of the Holocaust. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - an international news story of importance. Article is in reasonable shape for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Modest Genius. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Article has been expanded since nomination and now paints a fuller picture of the man's life. In doing so, it makes a case for significance worthy of a blurb. Tisnec (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm worried this is soon going to drop off the page soon, even though a substantial consensus in favour of posting a full blurb has developed after it was posted to RD. I'm not familiar with the ITN process; is there something missing? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am willing to post, but the proposed blurb seems a little too POV with "destroyed"; yes, I understand that's what happened and the word used in the article, but reviewing the cited sources for that article sentence does not show use of "destroyed" to refer to the people group in any of the cited sources.  Spencer T• C 07:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went with 'destroyed' after checking the lead of genocide, where it's defined as the "intentional destruction of people", but do you have other suggestions? 'Eradicated'? 'Wiped out'? The sources do unambiguously state that his people are now all dead and a significant number of them label it a 'genocide', so for me it's just a question of how to word that concisely enough to fit in an ITN. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spencer, would altblurb3 (No "destroyed".) work for you? -- PFHLai (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - More than just a death of an individual, this signifies a death of a language and a culture. Hence, deserving of a blurb.  Mel ma nn   09:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is not like the last of all indigenous people in the Amazon, just one small tribe. There is no fear evidence of the lack of other tribes out there. --M asem (t) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 significant story, deserves more than RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alt 3.  Spencer T• C 19:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Eek, alt3 is not good at all... there are many hundreds of thousands of indigenous people still living Brazil and the genocide of individual peoples is ongoing. The MITH was the (not one of) last survivor of one people or tribe, as the previous hooks said. Since this is the front page and a sensitive subject we're talking about, I'm going to be bold and change it to alt2, sans destroyed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks.  Spencer T• C 20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe, for explaining and putting in a better blurb. -- PFHLai (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has both a blurb and RD listing currently which is redundant. - Indefensible (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RD removed, sorry about that.  Spencer T• C 20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dorli Rainey

 * Support Looks satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Page (photographer)

 * Support - comprehensive, well referenced, looks ready? JennyOz (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Coradia iLint hydrail line

 * Oppose, reads like advertising.  Sandstein   12:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stale / misleading blurb. According to both our hydrail article and the Al Jazeera article listed above, this technology has been in commercial operation since 2018. The news here is increasing the number of trains in service from 2 to 14. That's very different from the claim in the blurb, and far less significant. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was tested in 2018; not actually formally implemented.Abcmaxx (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the DW link above, those two trains have been in passenger service for the entire four years, carrying fare-paying customers. That's not just a test, it's a small-scale deployment. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Amended further to above comments Abcmaxx (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, but there's one sentence update in the article. A better target would be a dedicated article, such as we have for metro lines in some big cities, for example. Tone 14:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but agree with Tone that a dedicated article would make a better target. Altblurb II preferred. EditMaker Me (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The newsworthiness of the current event is somewhat debatable, requiring the quality of the current update to carry a lot of weight. That update does not yet exist, and it seems unlikely there is enough "there" there to justify an update of such quality and quantity to compensate.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The CNN story says 14 "hydrogen trains powered by fuel-cell propulsion" will be deployed on a scenic route running to (or through?) Bremervörde, halfway between Bremerhaven and Hamburg, by the end of the year. Five of them began running Wednesday. The hydrogen units are to replace 15 diesel loc's. – Sca (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as effectively stale by Modest Genius. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't see how it can be stale if the first five started yesterday and the project will continue to be implemented during the rest of the year. -- Sca (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The linked articles and the Hydrail page mentions they had trains in service as early as 2018. These sources indicate it was a trial, but that these trains were actually in service for two years. The train system will now completely be hydrogen-powered, but the line has already had hydrogen-powered trains run it it for commercial service. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd still argue that there a huge difference between having two such trains among many as a test and somewhat novelty to having a whole line and fleet entirely running a service.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting. However, given there is no dedicated article and given it is an expansion of service, i think it is not enough for ITN. Tradedia talk 18:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing here yet – Is anyone planning on actually updating the article? looks like a great subject to feature if we would actually write about it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The target would be Coradia iLint, so I've modified the altblurb accordingly. Brandmeistertalk  10:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's only a two-graf section of the article on France-based Alstom. This topic needs a separate article on the project now underway in Germany. -- Sca (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, this does look a little better. I was only looking at hydrail. I do still think it's too weak for an ITN blurb, but it's a lot better. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Update There is now an article on the train: Coradia iLint. Therefore amended the blurbs and nomination accordingly.Abcmaxx (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Suggested target text is still a two-paragraph section of the Alstom article. Timeliness fading. -- Sca (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Yates

 * Support Looks good, everything seems to be sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kallistos (Ware)
Support, Article is good enough for RD. Alex-h (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Orange-tagged, needs more sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is orange-tagged. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - References have been added, and the orange tag removed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note One CN tag left, but it's not a minor one. I am looking around for a source. If one can't be found in a reasonable period of time, I will remove that section . -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think everything is now sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shalom Cohen

 * Support Looks alright. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Len Dawson

 * Needs some more refs. RIP to one of the all-time NFL greats :( BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently working on the referencing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All paragraphs now have a reference. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  A number of Cn's in the 1st two paragraphs of the college section. I'm wary that other large paragraphs with only one source at the end also have text not supported by the existing citations.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the article now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose. There's remaining unsourced details here and there, but I don't have concerns that they are verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we ready to post? Sportsfangnome (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we post this now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted: No outstanding opposition.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolando Cubela Secades

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 19:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vytjie Mentor

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A little more could be said about her political career beyond the controversies. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage of political career. Outside of "allegations", essentially no description of actions in the role or policy positions.  Spencer T• C 19:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julian Robertson

 * Support Solid article and decently sourced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Former Malaysian Prime Minister loses final appeal

 * Oppose We posted his conviction two years ago, so no need to post the confirmation by a higher court. This would have been notable had the appeal been accepted, but this is just a routine consequence in the case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kiril. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I agree with Kiril. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Twelve years in the slammer and a hefty fine. Was this a foregone conclusion? -- Sca (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He was sentenced in July 2020, when we previously posted this story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What significant is that he was free on bail and never served his prison sentence until this case is finally heard in the Apex Court of Malaysia. Wilson C A 99 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril, recommending SNOW closure. The Kip (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rahimuddin Khan

 * Support Article fully referenced, covers subject's life and career with adequate depth.  Spencer T• C 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good enough. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've added two more sources, it's good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Springfield

 * Comment Wow, 52 years retired and living off radio-play royalties... nice. Could do with a source for the awards, otherwise pretty much there.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've added citations for the awards - please reevaluate or add cn tags where they're needed.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for the update.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be well referenced. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Theo Sommer

 * Support It's short, although everything seems to be referenced, so it's good. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good work Gerda. Perhaps add User:Saksapoiss to updaters? Grimes2 (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. --PFHLai (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks good, if perhaps a bit spare at 595 words. (Spiegel 's German article tops 1,800 words.) Long a household name in German-speaking lands. – Sca (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Gaines

 * Support Looks good! --Vacant0 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gary_Gaines needs a ref then should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 21:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jerry Allison

 * Oppose As noted, quite a lot of work needed on sourcing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality not ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not ready. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: György Pásztor

 * Support Short but adequate and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Margaret Urlich

 * Not Ready per the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs in the prose. Two of three tables under "Awards and nominations" are unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC) The same. --PFHLai (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yangtze river dries

 * Comment Certainly seems notable, but I think the blurb should emphasize the hydropower loss over the river drying. One of the main power sources in perhaps the most important economy in the world being harmed like this is certainly a big deal. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Expand The proposed blurb is not acceptable because the Yangtze hasn't dried up; it's down about 50%. There are lots of stories out there about several major rivers including The Thames; Rhine; Danube; Colorado, etc.  We already have a blurb about the Oder but it seems clear that the issue is widespread -- see The world's rivers are drying up, for example.  We should be addressing this at a global level. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment where's the update? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Major rivers are drying up all over the world (ex the Colorado, Danube, Rhine &etc.). I think that is a major story that if an article could be gotten together might be ITN worthy. But that is a big IF. And we would have to debate the date issue as ITN is geared towards clearly datable recent events that are "in the news." Maybe a DYK? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How's the Yellow River doing? -- Sca (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sca Interestingly I have found almost nothing on the Yellow River that is drought related. This despite several reports that China is experiencing a national water shortage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a potentially significant and postable story here, with both environmental and economic ramifications. But the proposed blurb over-states what has actually happened, and we would need a specific article (something like 2022 Yangtze river drought) rather than burying a brief update in the article on the whole river. I'll be happy to re-assess if someone writes such an article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It appears the blurb might not be all true per Ad Orientem and also this is sadly just one of the ongoing consequences of climate change per Andrew. I would support posting if the entire river dries up or very little is left. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose So the river level is much less than usual. It is a piece of a much larger global problem. I don't know if we blurbed the Rhine problem in Germany. In anycase, i feel that this one si not enough for a blurb on its own. Tradedia talk 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It does look like the Yangtze is entirely dried up in places, not just low levels of water, contrary to the above comments. Article from 22 August.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as entirely dried up in places. If a river's half-full, of course the higher ground is going to be the drier half. That blurb's misleading, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise, a drop in power is not a stop. One is incremental and the other's absolute. Anyway, the forecast suggests these reductions will still produce news in a month (give or take), so Eventual Support isn't out of the question yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As long as the article doesn't go into detail on the drought, it cannot be blurbed. The article still doesn't mention the current state at all. Wikipedia readers are poorly served if we featured this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Ad Orientem, Modest. Other rivers aside, article doesn't focus on blurb topic. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Singapore repeals 377A

 * I'm wondering if this is still a novel thing these days. Even in Russia they decrminalized that years ago. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It still is in much of the world, in this case in Asia. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "announces" means nothing. In any case, we should discuss this once decriminalization is formal and official. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough. Tradedia talk 11:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually happens, then we can reconsider. I'm not sure this move is significant enough, especially in such a small country and the law hasn't been enforced in many years, but it's certainly something that can be discussed. But that discussion should happen when the law changes, not a mere announcement of intention. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As a related story, Vietnam has recently changed its stance that homosexuality is not a disease . Doesn't legalize gay marriage but may be worth to include if there is support for the Singapore story. M asem  (t) 12:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Seems quite commonplace these days. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The latest in a long list of similar events almost all of which seem to end up being nominated here. Legalization of SSM and/or decriminalization of same sex relations has become a fairly common news story. If/when Saudi Arabia or Russia legalize SSM I might give that some serious consideration. But otherwise, this is just another in a long line of dominoes falling over. Twenty years ago, this was big news. Ten years ago, it was significant news. Today, it is more or less "... and in other news..." If someone wants to suggest this be treated as ITNR, that discussion should be held on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia legalized SSM in 1993, a bit too late to blurb now. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 17:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arado Ar 196 our article LGBT rights in Russia appears to need updating as it states that SSM is illegal in Russia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem, no, article's up to date, I just mixed up sex between men and same sex marriage. Former legalized in 1993, latter still illegal. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 05:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whatever. STSC (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hayat Hotel siege

 * Support once ready - Highly notable event with a lot of news coverage. EditMaker Me (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle based on the media reports - major event with substantial loss of life, most deadly attack in years even in unstable Somalia. But the article is just a stub so not ready. Needs substantial expansion to meet WP:ITNCRIT. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub and footnote in the long running Somali Civil War (2009–present) which maybe we should park in ongoing? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support if the article becomes long enough. However, that's unlikely to happen because nowhere near enough editors are interested in what's happening in Africa to make that likely. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, After the article is improved.This is a major event ,but the article lacks enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A mere fragment (60 words) of a stub. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on principle. Event itself is ITN-worthy, but article is still a stub. The Kip (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support notability but await expansion - quality in terms of content that is there is fine, just needs quite a lot more of it. Given its Somalia and a recent event this may take some time.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like the August 2022 Kabul mosque bombing - which had a similar death toll & wasn't nominated - it's unlikely to be expanded enough to be eligible to be posted, despite being notable enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ...or it's not notable at all and that's why no one will bother to update it? Seems like the free market at work here... --LaserLegs (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of editors is due to a lack of interest in undeveloped countries, such as Afghanistan & Somalia. Had such things happened in the developed world, the articles would be several times longer, and several times more people would be editing them. How can attacks on civilian targets with death tolls of about 20 not be notable? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI LaserLegs primary contribution to ITN is to whine about percieved anti-American bias (including over a non-blurbing RD of a black basketball legend he himself never bothered to support the nom of), bitch about European states 1/5th the size of the US and leave snarky conservative commentary on everything. So when are the admins here going to officially reprimand him for his disruptive bullshit? It's so blatant. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:F0C7:8374:3578:29D (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I opposed posting Bill Russell as I do for almost all death blurbs and it was very bigoted of you to focus on the deceased race which should have no bearing on notability -- but hey, thanks for the personal attacks they cheer me up even more than actually reading these articles before commenting on their suitability. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He did get a warning not too long ago for celebrating people getting killed crossing into Ceuta/Melilla. But yeah, the constant trolling and toxicity is rather offputting. Do as i say, not as i do seems to be the mantra. 91.96.25.143 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is a stub and hasn't been improved since nomination. Recommending this nom to close. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to close this unless/until it's older than the oldest blurb in the template. There's time for someone to expand the article, if they wish and can find reliable sources. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another attack in Somalia... How much more can you write about it... Tradedia talk 18:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting that this is part of the long-running Somali Civil War and multiple such attacks have occurred in the capital (Mogadishu bombings). How this is different from those recurring events has not been made clear. Gotitbro (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support notability but it's a very long way off from being main page ready.  Schwede 66  23:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * After 5 days, this is still a stub with only 78 words of prose? --PFHLai (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with 78 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Bus crashes in Turkey

 * Support Combining unrelated incidents is a novel spin on the bus plunge story. Can we add the horror crash on the A40 as that's big news here and is not related to either of them too? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I don't think the article should conflate two unrelated incidents. Tragic traffic accidents with no wider implications. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Modest. Two incidents without general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bus plunge --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - if two crashes have a total fatality of 35, then one of them must be at least 18, which is above the threshold of fatalities at which we'd usually post. Agree with the above though, they need to be treated as separate incidents and the article on the most serious of the two needs to be significantly expanded. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we rarely post road accidents due their lack of importance. An exception is cases such as the Chiapas truck crash, when the vehicle is full of illegal immigrants being smuggled. These two crashes appear to have been ordinary, with the only unusual thing being their high death tolls & the fact that that two happened on the same day in the same country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * !Vote plunged into Oppose per Modest and LaserLegs. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a good ITN story. Tradedia talk 18:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's much more suited to DYK. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)]'


 * Oppose A novel spin on the bus plunge but nonetheless provincial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As there isn't a relationship between the two crashes, it's a poor candidate for ITN.  Schwede 66  23:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article as it stands now does not go into detail that makes this a reasonable news story for the front page. If further connection between the two event was analyzed, such as systematic infrastructure problems in Turkey, I could imagine this working. But as it stands, it's at best a DYK story. Either way, the article is too short and stubby to blurb. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oliver Frey

 * Posted to RD  Spencer T• C 19:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Mueller

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per Bloom. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Zulu coronation

 * Oppose Subnational accessions usually don't get posted; see our previous debate on Hong Kong. The Kip (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination for the above reason.EditMaker Me (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is quite literally in the news, and is significant as they are monarch over the largest ethnic group in South Africa. Polyamorph (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think we should be applying colonial bias to deciding which nations are worthy of inclusion. Polyamorph (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Colonial bias isn’t the problem here, the problem is that it’s simply put not a sovereign nation. Same reason we don’t include the elections/accessions of the Governor of New York or First Minister of Scotland. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that an actual rule though? Colonial bias is an issue, because without colonialism they certainly would have a recognised sovereign nation of their own. Polyamorph (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't deal in hypotheticals, only facts as they are. South Africa is the sovereign state here. The Kip (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the rule it must be a sovereign state to be worthy of ITN? Polyamorph (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure when you began on ITNR, but we use precedence per WP:ITNR. We almost never (really, if ever) post non-sovereign entities. If you’ve got a problem, open a discussion on the talk page. The Kip (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. No I don't have a problem. I do think ITN could do more to cover indigenous nations so perhaps that is worth a discussion at some point. Polyamorph (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * weak support we have posted royal coronations and jubilees before, if anything this should be regarded as that, rather than head of state criteria. Royals are largely symbolic and ceremonial in most places today. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not only is this a non-sovereign nation, he's also been king for over a year now (succeeded in March 2021). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Coronation =/= succession. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Succession is far more significant. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When Charles ascends to the throne I expect us to blurb that (alongside the death or abdication of his mother, which would be the trigger). I wouldn't expect us to blurb his coronation though, which might take place a year or so later. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Again, per Modest. Not a sovereign state. No immediate impact. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose,Not a sovereign state, does not come in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough. Tradedia talk 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it not important enough ? It's in the news and deemed sufficiently notable to have an independent article. What would be enough? Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it (the coronation) clearly doesn't have an independent article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone had written a high-quality independent article on the coronation, I probably would've supported this blurb, as that's exactly the sort of thing that we would like to present in our ITN block. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are a lot of different tribes and ethnic groups in Africa, many of which have an ongoing ceremonial leader, chief of king. The Zulu are quite well known for various reasons, but they're far from the only group in South Africa, let alone the continent as a whole and other areas of the world. I don't think it would be practical to post all of these in addition to national political leaders, or to attempt to decide which are the more "important", therefore it's more neutral not to post any of them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find it interesting that this debate has been opened, but we have to be pragmatic and, as Amakuru says, in Africa there are many ethno-monarchical groups and including the Zulus would be a bad precedent. Perhaps we should have a more sensitive view of indigenous communities, but not in this way. Also, the succession occurred last year after the passing of Goodwill Zwelithini, it is now a mere ceremonial coronation. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Darya Dugina

 * Wait – Widely covered, but significance questionable as her father, Alexander Dugin, a nationalist idealogue, was the likely target. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb / Support RD. "Daughter of influential guy is killed" is not the level of notability that is sufficient for ITN, especially since it's not that surprising that someone might have had issue with the guy who is partly responsible for that disastrous situation Russia finds itself in. Article looks good enough for RD now though. Regards So  Why  13:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb and RD Subject's notability beyond just her death has already been questioned and the article could end up being moved and no longer be a biographical article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: The proposed blurb saying "the daughter of..." is already indicating that the deceased is not notable enough on her own. So, let's forget about blurbing this news story. It may be ok as an RD nom, but the wikibio is short (barely 400 words) and could use more info on her life -- any examples of her "misdeeds" that got her sanctioned so early? What misinformation did she spread before the war? If she was not notable enough before the car bomb exploded, her wikibio may not survive an AfD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * She said the same things her father said, genocidal 'fantasies', although uncertain if they can still be called fantasies. She visited the Azovstal ruins in Mariupol and said some very nasty things, and she did before the war as well. Her vitriol was hosted by russian state TV i believe. But i am uncertain how much of that is actually covered in RS, i had seen clips of it though. I did a search for her name after i read the news 30 minutes after it happened, and very little came up. Guess RS hadn't taken much of an interest in her up to now. But she was sanctioned for dealing in misinformation/propaganda, in her own right and not as her fathers daughter. Very active in the european far-right from what i could gather. 188.118.188.76 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Lacks significant notability beyond circumstances of death. The Kip (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD Stephen 06:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Guess who the Russians blame? – why, Ukraine of course.   – Sca (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the FSS was going to do it? Seriously, seems pretty reasonable that the Ukrainians would if they could, either her or her father. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Or was it the anti-Putin Russian resistance, aka the National Republican Army? -- Sca (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not like a false flag attack would be out of the question, either… The Kip (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Usyk vs Joshua

 * Oppose first off, the fact that he's Ukranian means precisely fuck all, given that while the Ukranian military is fighting Russia in the east, he stayed in a comfortable hotel in Saudi Arabia (themselves prosecuting a devastating proxy war which has killed tens of thousands and somehow escaped the mouth foaming hysteria shown to the Russian invasion of Ukraine); and second because there is no prose summary of the fight. As for significance, I cannot say, boxing seems somewhat unregulated so if someone else can highlight the significance of this match other than WP:RGW virtue signaling please do so. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disregarding LaserLegs’ hysterics, I don’t recall us usually posting boxing results, barring an especially historically significant fight. The Kip (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty impossible to add major boxing fights here, unlike rowing contests. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Snoo- - -. — Sca (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HtD, boxing is a no-go on ITN due to the impossibility of determining whether a particular fight is championship-level. If we had an WP:ITN/NO, boxing would be on there. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  21:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A Jamaican-born British dude kicked a Nigerian-born American dude clear out of his own head last night in Salt Lake City. A Moldovan juggernaut was also made to look weak by a highly intelligent Polack. But you don't see me dropping impressive names, ranks or titles here, combat sports recognition is futile. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Being a Ukrainian doesn't make an event you're involved in any more significant. Boxing results are not posted on ITN, so I don't see why this should be an exception. EditMaker Me (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nayyara Noor

 * Comment some content needs to be sourced. I've added some cn tags._-_Alsor (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Alsoriano97. I have filled the CN tags. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support now looks good to go. Thanks Ktin. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kate Holbrook

 * Long enough (400+ words of prose), with footnotes at expected spots, formatting looking fine, and Earwig found no troubles, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Malone (author)

 * Long enough (600+ words of prose). Deployment of footnotes looks fine. Formatting looks fine. Earwig reports no concerns. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Wockenfuss

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. I've attempted to re-write and re-arrange the prose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Kabat

 * Oppose on quality article needs sources, his nationality is not mentioned, nor is the country (cities and states) in which the events take place. We should not assume that everyone knows that Pennsylvania and Texas are in the United States._-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is sourced, is long enough, and is generally issue free. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Riddick Parker

 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, looks good. --Tone 09:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Josephine Tewson

 * Support Everything seems to be sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 06:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator blocked as a sock, for what it's worth.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 European derecho

 * Comment Article is too short and devoid of anything but just what happened. Is this potentially related to the heat wave in Europe?, as I really can't see how this can be expanded much and if it is part of the heat wave, it could be covered there. --M asem (t) 15:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it isn’t. A derecho just just super long-tracking storm system, and this one just happen to be a super rare and near record-breaking level. Derecho’s are uncommon either (List of derecho events), but in Europe, one that rivals the fast wind speeds of the yearly/multi-yearly US ones is super rare. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – AFAIK, derecho isn't commonly used in English. The only English-language RS using it appears to be WaPo, cited above. The AP article, referenced by WaPo, doesn't use the word, which is Spanish. – Sca (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Derecho" is a common-enough English-language term. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You must be thinking of gecko. Or maybe Dreck. -- Sca (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * List of derecho events. Very common in the US (Yearly or multi-yearly events). Elijahandskip (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Derecho" wasn't English before, sure, but "hurricane winds" is clearly fugazi now. "Hurricane force winds" is a bit more accurate, but way too long. AP needs to wise up to WP, not vice versa. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "AP needs to wise up to WP" - umm no, that would be WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We aren't here to set any trends or influence how others present things. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's no great wrong, and nothing new; the English Wikipedia has been telling the world what derechos are since August 2004. Many British adult netizens were legit offline born into this world. You and Sca are trying to wrong that great right, from my perspective. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether a word is common in English shouldn't change how it's presented in ITN. Derecho is the word here, regardless of how commonly people use it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, We operate by the WP:COMMONNAME principle, our job is to present things the way the sources present them, not to be smart and use a term that won't be recognizable to readers. Sca is correct, if this is posted if should be done so under plain language, as sources describing this incident have done (particularly those from Europe, to which this article is linked by WP:TIES). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Plain language like...? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling it a storm might be a start, it covers all the bases and is clearly accessible to all readers. The sources I've seen are generally saying "thunderstorms and hurricane-force winds". No mention of derecho anywhere in the UK press, I do wonder if it's an WP:ENGVAR issue. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article derecho says Derecho comes from the Spanish adjective for "straight" (or "direct"), in contrast with a tornado which is a "twisted" wind.[3] The word was first used in the American Meteorological Journal in 1888 by Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs in a paper describing the phenomenon and based on a significant derecho event that crossed Iowa on 31 July 1877.[4] So it comes from a synonym for directo contrasting its straight-line winds with tornado which means "turnado". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As a beneficiary of countless storms and survivor of one derecho, I don't feel right belittling the latter by word association. A storm "brews" first, a derecho just suddenly turns out the light and "suckerpunches" its prey. And oh God, the wind! That's probably a better Simple English word for people against borrowing from Spanish. Something like a hardcore orage. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, the real Simple English Wikipedia prefers to think of a derecho as a group of thunderstorms first, and a particularly deadly wolflike wind demon among them second. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More importantly, this New World Independent correspondent sent back word of a green derecho on the historical plains of Dakota just last month. I'll bet it took a while for "you people" to agree on an adequate term for your newly introduced tobacco and cacao, too. But in this Newfangled Information Age, common neological constructions that once took decades can be built in a day, so wake up and smell the Transformablow®, brother, or we'll "build the bridge" without you! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it has to be expanded, that’s part of why I brought it here. As far as the heat wave - if they refused to merge 2022 European drought into the heat wave article, this wouldn’t be merged either.--107.161.13.28 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose in quality — Article is far too short to express how big of an event this is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality.  Schwede 66  07:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Schwede, Amakuru. A 130-word stub can't be whipped into ITN shape. A time-waster. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a little disrespectful to call this impossible to get into ITN shape and a time waster. It being brought to ITN should allow quality of the article to improve to ITN level. If it really can’t be expanded, it ought to be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERMASTUB. They’re should be grounds for expansion, just that no one is bothering to do anything. Let’s change that. 67.217.121.162 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest close. -- Sca (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Path of least resistance? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality There is practically nothing in the article in question at the moment. Needs more text to even be considered. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that this event took place in France and Italy, where the metric system is used, the blurb should mention the speed in km/h first. Chrisclear (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And Austria and Slovenia. Everybody metric! But I like our American units. And metric for science. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, Per above, article is too short. Alex-h (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough material to put on front page. Also, i don't agree with "it has to be expanded, that’s part of why I brought it here." Tradedia talk 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So we should let a crappy stub remain a crappy stub? 2601:185:8300:42EF:6149:B579:AF6A:2807 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a stub. Polyamorph (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norah Vincent

 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hanae Mori

 * Oppose article is orange-tagged. A lot of work is required. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Retirements sections needs some REF work but other than that the article is fine. EditMaker Me (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Retirement section still needs more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the inadequately sourced Retirement section, and there are still 500+ words of prose remaining. The shortened wikibio looks okay for use on RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is sourced. Short but good enough for RD. Time to post it. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Nadir crater

 * Comment – I would like to see the article expanded a bit more first, but this looks very promising. Would be a really interesting article to blurb! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The peer-reviewed paper describes it as a candidate impact crater, because the evidence is very incomplete. In addition, the date is highly uncertain - it's quite likely this isn't related to Chicxulub at all. At present this is just a proposal with some circumstantial hints, which IMO makes it unsuitable for ITN. (Theses issues should also be described in our article.) <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. This is just a claim by a group of scientists published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal awaiting verification/refutation by other scientists in the field. That's how science works. That the media publish a modified version in a clickbait-oriented manner is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "newsworthy" part of this is the possible connection to the dinosaur mass extinction event, but that's not yet proven, only that these feature exists in the ocean. --M asem (t) 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Granted, scientific discoveries rarely take the form of gigantic breakthroughs. Instead, they are gradual, halting steps as a hypothesis is posited, repeatedly tested, and then eventually subsumed into standing scientific consensus. This is not good as far as ITN is concerned when we want to give attention to these minority topics, but the lack of a definitive moment-of-truth prevents us from publicizing stories such as these. Perhaps ITN and science news are just incompatible.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's even more galling, I think, when you consider the fact that every single item currently on the ITN template right now currently involves death, or an attempt to cause death. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This item would be about death and disaster too. Looking at the BBC News currently, the main alternative I'm seeing is Girls just wanna have fun....  But note that the Japanese government is following this "party on, dudes!" trend too... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Last month we posted science blurbs including the first JWST images, Chinese paddlefish extinction, and the Fields medal (OK that's maths, but pretty close to science). ITN does feature scientific stories from time to time - big breakthroughs do happen, albeit not as often as disasters and elections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable scientific discovery This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius and Masem. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There have been many claimed impact craters that lack definitive evidence that have turned out not to be true, which I have spent a lot of time cleaning up. In this case, there is no definitive confirmation that this is indeed an impact crater. This is merely a first step in confirming/disproving whether this structure is an impact crater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is sourced a single peer reviewed, but nevertheless primary, research paper from the group that made the discovery. There is a CNN reference in the article, and some other news organisations have picked up the story, no doubt originating from a press release to promote the groups new Science Advances paper. Nice paper, but needs wider coverage beyond the authors of this original study and associated stories released to the press. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Defteros v. Google LLC

 * Oppose, as the targeted article does not qualify based on length and even then, the way jurisprudence works throughout the world typically means this case wouldn't factor into the case law of different nations. rawmustard (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that other common-law countries will occasionally cite decisions from other jurisdictions, but that it's not controlling precedent, and it's very uncommon. Here in the US, it's even very uncommon for state courts to cite precedents from other states. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a landmark ruling and effectively other areas of the world already have this like Section 230 for the US. --M asem (t) 16:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification/Altblurb/Oppose While Google is not a publisher in this case about its search results, it very well could be a publisher in other cases, particularly any about its publications. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This maintains the status quo, and is consistent with other legal jurisdictions. Plus the article is a stub. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting but provincial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per all above. Not all news is likely to get the attention in Candidates, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charley Frazier

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yeap, this wikibio is indeed READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eva-Maria Hagen

 * This wikibio currently has only 312 words of prose. (It's passable, but anything more to write about her? Perhaps how her first marriage broke down ...? Losing her citizenship and writing several books?) Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Formatting is fine. This wikibio is READY for RD, but could be a bit longer, methinks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matti Lehtinen

 * With almost 400 words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. Footnotes appear at expected spots (AGF on non-English sources). Formatting looks fine. This brand-new wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good now after a few sourcing improvements. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Relies one one Finnish source, but sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mark Girouard

 * The wikibio currently has only 311 words of prose. Anything more to write about him? Also, please be reminded that the Bibliography section needs to be fully sourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I filled in the entire bibliography aside from one for Rushton Triangular Lodge (2004). Everything else look good? Thriley (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Bibliography remains unsourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Bibliography is now sourced aside from one publication which I believe is a pamphlet. Thriley (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Petersen

 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will require some work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Thank you for fixing the article. The article looks g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Steve Grimmett

 * Apparently, the "big clean-up" mentioned in the nominator's comments above has not happened yet. Please expand and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Darius Campbell Danesh

 * Support Article seems good to post XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support, - Have added some additional sources Mark E (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not ready many unsourced statements. I have added cn tags. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All but one sourced. Unable to find evidence of album having gone platinum in India so removed the claim. Mark E (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be sourced now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pete Carril

 * Long enough (728 words of prose), with footnotes at expected spots, formatting looking fine, and no troubles found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) FIFA sanctions Indian FA

 * Oppose Update doesn't currently meet WP:ITNCRIT. It's impact seems minimal, only affecting a U-!7 event.—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the AIFF article now. Well they cannot qualify the Asian Championships or the World Cup, fairly significant for the most/2nd most populous nation in the world's most widely played and watched sport. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment It's a one-line update on a start-class article. I would like to see the situation explained better on Wikipedia before blurbing. Not sure about the impact but this does seem quite major. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose temporary bans for government interference in sports boards are quite common and are usually lifted once the board is cleared out/reset, so this is fairly transient. Also, India are hopeless at football/soccer and have no chance of qualifying for the World Cup so this basically won't affect any high level tournaments Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of significance. Even if it was important enough to post, there's only two relevant sentences in the article, giving no more information than is in the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major news, the worlds most populous country suspended from hosting events for the worlds most popular sport, and two months before a major event. Obvious notability. Needs one more sentence update and maybe some reactions and it's good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and SNOW close. The event is of minimal significance and the target article has not been updated well enough. EditMaker Me (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else! Polyamorph (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What was the suspension for, is still not mentioned in the article. "Third party interference" in what sense exactly? Gotitbro (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * as far as I understand it, government interference most likely. I didn't want to assume anything, I just put what the sources said. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Frederick Buechner

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Referencing still lacking. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a few paragraphs are footnote-free. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Evans

 * Support Short but adequate. Decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Issues addressed, looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.--PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lenny Johnrose

 * Not Ready per OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Prose needs more footnotes. Stats in infobox need sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Kenyan general election

 * Support - Major news  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - firstly, the individual should not be a bolded link, the news item is the election only, as per all other elections worldwide (e.g. the last US election, in which Joe Biden was not bolded). Secondly, there needs to be a prose update in the linked article detailing what happened, as we would expect for any election or event of this nature. 2017_Kenyan_general_election at least has a few sentences explaining how things unfolded and who won. Thirdly, and this probably isn't an issue at this stage as reliable sources are reporting that Ruto is president-elect, but there's some controversy going on around this. Four of the electoral commissioners have disowned the result that their own chairman has announced, and it is very likely that the result will go to the Supreme Court in the next week or two, to air whatever issues those commissioners plus the losers of the election may have to say. I'm not sure what would happen if we report this as news now, then have to announce something different further down the line if there's a re-run for example... (as there was in 2017). Food for thought anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs update. I agree with Amakuru that the bold link should be to the election, not Ruto. The content already in the election article is good and adequately referenced, but it doesn't have any prose on the results. Needs some textual description, reaction, aftermath etc. - especially if the opponents have said they intend to appeal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 24 hours later, no prose on the results has been added to the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb (not the alts). There's now several paragraphs of reaction, explaining the messy announcement and intention to appeal. I'm not sure that section is entirely neutral, but the overall article is good enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now per Modest Genius. Lack of prose in the "Preliminary results" section (which preliminary seems not to be anymore) and a section on reactions/aftermath is missing. That they are challenged before the Supreme Court is a consequence of the elections, which by themselves are INTR. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just listened to a report on BBC Radio and the result didn't sound reliable – a week to count the votes; violence at the announcement and election officials disowning the result. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The results have been reported by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. The reliability of this commission and of the results of the elections must be assumed, no matter how much there are opponents who reject them or may "smell bad" the counts. Saying what you say, it would exclude from being ITNR the elections in many countries, especially in Africa, and we've already said on several occasions that it's not up to us to make this judgment. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in this case four members of the actual IEBC you cite have disowned the reported result. Although for as yet unspecified reasons. It's not just the opposition candidates. However, the crucial point is that reliable sources are calling the result a Ruto win, so for that purpose we can regard the result as final for now, pending any further supreme court decision which might be made in the future. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In the same way as was done with the American presidential elections: when reliable sources announced the results, these were already taken for firm. It would be ITNR-worthy (IMO) in the event that the Supreme Court invalidates the results and a general election has to be held again in Kenya. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Follow the RS reports. – Sca (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC is the reliable source I'm reading and it says, "Four of the seven members of the electoral commission refused to endorse the result, saying it was "opaque". ... Kenya's history of disputed elections in the past have led to violence or the whole process election being cancelled.  ... The Kenyan Supreme Court annulled the last election ...".  As we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, there's no rush and so it would be prudent to wait a while and see how this works out. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC also says Ruto won. It’s not up to us to judge whether the election was free and fair, only to post the results. The Kip (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Am I missing something? I don't see any text about the result or the split in the electoral commission.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, pending article development. Official results appear to have been accepted. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Odinga to challenge the official tally. Expected. Doesn't change results for now. Article, though longish (3,300 words), seems acceptable. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – I've done a bit of tidy up. The article is good enough; solid referencing. The original blurb is good to go.  Schwede 66  23:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment the article already meets the conditions to be published. But not with the altblurb but with the original one, since it's the model we always use for the presidential elections. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Denise Dowse

 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section is still unsourced. Too many sentences in the (short) Career section have no footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Same. --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Déwé Gorodey

 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Yerevan explosion

 * Oppose on notability and because the article itself is no more than a stub. Also, the proposed blurb has no link to the target article. EditMaker Me (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, I hope someone may expand this article further. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality If someone is able to translate the Armenian equivalent article to help expand the article then that would be helpful XxLuckyCxX (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality _-_Alsor (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Pueblos Unidos cartel is broken up

 * Oppose Seems to be a local group, formed in 2021 to defend avocado farms from drug cartels, tangential at best. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InedibleHulk. A local group, doesn't mark a before and after in the war against carteles, with no relevant leaders, no long history of its activity and not even a Wikipedia article of its own. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to you on relevancy of leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that they're more relevant than I thought, but they don't have their own article in Wikipedia either. I had in mind characters such as Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, Miguel Caro Quintero... _-_Alsor (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait The group has not disbanded; it has retaliated. The situation seems complex and confused: "A Pueblos Unidos leader arrived at the scene to negotiate with the authorities and after making agreements, the retained officers were let go. Neither the authorities nor Pueblos Unidos would share details of the negotiations. ..."  And coverage seems limited and patchy.  Searching for sources, I'm liking this related story about a giant hole.  I've been watching Narcos lately and these incidents and plot twists would make more great TV... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is one of the better corporate vampire sinkhole stories I've read this year, so thanks. But make no mistake, those Pueblos Unidos are from long ago and far away. Non-canonical, as the TV kids say, just a good name for any united people without a more distinctive brand. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I'm not finding any coverage on Pueblos Unidos anywhere on Wikipedia. They are not even mentioned in the Mexican drug war article (which also seems a bit of a broad article for such a blurb). Wikipedia readers are poorly served if we blurbed this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no article on this. Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's solely the lack of article for Pueblos Unidos then I can create it as there does look to be plenty of WP:RS on them. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Encyclopedic target article totals 1,400 words and doesn't focus on a news development. Doesn't seem appropriate for ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No article, murky details, minimal coverage in mainstream media (which are covering other events in the Mexican drug war e.g. ), no reason to see this as a significant development. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination per most of the above, in particular Modest Genius. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Giza church fire

 * Oppose on significance and quality - a single sentence! Polyamorph (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. However, the article needs major expansion before this gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. This clearly needs work to be able to be posted, but I profoundly disagree with Polyamorph claiming that this dister lacks significance. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded, which Ill get to work on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Think there enough here at this point, will keep working on it though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, article needs more information, although the unfortunate number of losses is significant.. Alex-h (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is too short. Support it once improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so I know what people are looking for here, how long of an article do you think is necessary to post? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More than 400 words. A Start class article. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, currently at 441 words of readable prose. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is still a stub article. Perhaps with a section titled "Background" that talks about the Coptic community in Giza, the history of that church, what they were celebrating (or if it was an ordinary Sunday mass), if there is any similar precedent.... _-_Alsor (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats just based on the assessment on the talk page though. Id say this is start class at least at this point. Ill see what I can find for background without resorting to synth though, but id expect it to take some time for that type of analysis tying together past events to happen here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And done, this would now meet the DYK requirements for length (524 words, 3258 characters of readable prose) to post as well. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - the title of the article is very generic; arguably it should be merged into the parent article of the subject church, which also should be updated. The blurb needs to link the article as well, currently it does not meet posting requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the title, added altblurb to address those issues. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Major disaster with significant loss of life. Article quality is now acceptable for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article now meets the minimum requirements for ITNR and is a notable disaster. No longer a stub article. Good job Naableezy. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of the quality of the article I created and the significant amount of deaths. Fixer88 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - there is uncertainty over the identity and location of the subject church. - Indefensible (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dont think that matters tbh, but I *think* I have the correct location now, but either way until its verified can just keep that out. We have a name and neighborhood, dont need exact coordinates. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to rush, this is an encyclopedia and not a news site. - Indefensible (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not rushing, but the article does not have a wikilink to a church or coordinates, not having that isnt all that important. The confusion you speak of is now just on the talk page, and it shouldnt matter for our purposes here now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per previous users. Quality is now up to par. The Kip (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment credit to  for majorly expanding the article! Abcmaxx (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment more than ready to go, strong consensus and a reasonable article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freya

 * Oppose Only 239 words, too stubby. --M asem  (t) 13:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Barely any content and only four references total. Polyamorph (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Polyamorph, if references are an issue, I can easily find and addd more, I'm just conscious of WP:OVERCITE. (Also, I must disagree with the "stubby" assessment, rater predicts Start class anyway) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We expect articles posted to main page to be >500 words. While not a "stub", it still is too stubby for front page. M asem (t) 15:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on one's definition of what a stub is, which can be subjective. Regardless, I (or anyone else) can still work on and expand the article to make it more suitable for here. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Start is only one up from stub. The lack of references reflects the lack of content. Polyamorph (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still in a work in progress, besides, rather that WP:CITEBOMB the article, I'd rather WP:MINE the sources I already have and expand the content of the article (although perhaps it was too soon for the ITN nomination?). If you want to find references, try googling "Freya walrus", it's pretty well covered, don't worry! Feel free to help expand the article if you want, and have a great day :) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's not so much about the lack of references than the lack of content. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm not sure if the death of animals is a right topic for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the animal is notable enough to have its own wikiarticle, it's fine. Racehorses and popular zoo animals have gone on RD before. --PFHLai (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles about animals are occasionally posted on ITN. As the nominating template says, "any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, for me, if a article is long enough for DYK (which this article is), it's long enough for ITN. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per policy, we should not debate whether an animal (or person) is "appropriate" to appear, as per explanation included in every single nomination. We need only discuss whether the article quality suffices. And since I've just approved this for DYK, I think it's per definition now no longer a stub (was also expanded a bit recently, now at 400 words), and could appear. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN requires a higher word count (500), as with RDs we are generally expecting that the article already exists, and the death confirmation is being added. M asem (t) 17:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When does it get posted to DYK? Having it on both columns would be redundant. - Indefensible (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlikely anytime soon, it's not in any queue yet, only just approved.
 * I see. I'm not as active here, and don't know the specifics. To be fair, the animal has been in the news and named since October 2021, but we didn't have an article until now (probably because, well, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS). It's now at 467 words, only a little short, so I still stand by my vote. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on present quality. BD2412  T 17:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem is that it's not really a biography, is it? It's a news story about a walrus.  Whilst it probably passes GNG, given the very low bar there (although, frankly, WP:NOTNEWS), it should really be "2022 Norwegian walrus incident" or something like that.  Let's face it, if it had been an important story, the article would have existed before (checks notes) six hours ago. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can read in my reply above, I've very slyly turned the "not news" argument against you ;) Although I get what you mean: It's not the usual nomination, and I can understand why you'd vote oppose. I see it differently (we currently only have two named wild walruses, this one and Wally), but yeah I trust consensus will determine what's best. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: At least on the technical side, we are now at 526 words. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ... due to recent expansion, we are now at 662 words. And to those skeptical in regards to article creation, there really are several sources dating to 2021, we just did not have an article up until now. Which totally makes sense if you think about it, it only became WP:NOTNEWS due to the continued press coverage months later. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post".  Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there was no WP article until today about the walrus, thus the above issues related to length and notability are 100% fair game to consider. Most of that has been resolved since but we still will raise questions of notability of an article created on the same day as the death if it is short and/or lacking sourcing. M asem (t) 22:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what WP:AFD is for. If you or anyone else doubts the notability, that's how to go about asserting the concern. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we tagged it for AFD that would 1) be pointy (given that there were editors sayign they were working on expanding it) and 2) disqualify the article for ITN posting while the AFD tag sat there. The reason to make sure that there's enough content for a freshly created article that is then put to be on RD is to make sure that it meets our quality expectations (500 words min, using reasonable sourcing) If for some reason that a new article couldn't get to those levels, then yes, an AFD would be required. It's just the claim "oh, there's a standalone, we must post" is not how we operate, we're still evaluating the quality of the standalone for posting. That's not an automatic blind thing that Andrew is suggesting. --M asem (t) 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of all this. Yet an article with sufficient coverage existed, sufficient notability was asserted, no-one had AFD'ed it.  So that's just time to move on.  By the time Andrew made his vote, all the boxes were checked.  There was literally nothing else to be concerned about.  Feels like there's some wonkery afoot here, "a freshly created article" caveat.  Nein danke.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is reasonable enough, covers the death of a notable animal, nothing much more to debate here unless someone wants to take the article to WP:AFD of course, otherwise, hurry up and post. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vinayak Mete

 * Oppose barely more than a stub. Both sections are entirely unsourced. Polyamorph (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A Recent Death nomination with zero footnotes in the Death section? Some REFs are in place now. --PFHLai (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Please expand this stub and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At 153 words, this wikibio is too stubby to qualify. Anything more to write about him? --PFHLai (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2022 European heat waves

 * Support: The heatwave is ongoing and has caused droughts, huge wildfires and environmental damage. greyzxq  talk 11:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Many sections of the article haven't been updated for weeks. Miggie H (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – It would take a herculean effort to cobble together a good article about the high levels of heat this summer around the world. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: ID sources per usual format, please. – Sca (talk)
 * This is my first time suggesting something for ITN so I am not sure what you mean. I did try and follow the instructions. Munci (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See other nom's re sources. -- Sca (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are multiple heat waves besides the ones in Europe happening in the world. Does not make sense to isolate one at this time. --M asem (t) 13:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The drought should also be mentioned. It's the worst drought in about 500 years. It's now rivaling the 1540 European drought "Everything began in northern Italy, with a winter that felt like a July. Not a single drop fell from October 1539 to early April 1540. Then the drought advanced north."[5] July brought such an "ember-like heat that churches made prayers while the Rhine, Elbe and Seine could be crossed on a dry foot. Where there was still water, the warm broth acquired a green colour," dead fish floated belly-up." Count Iblis (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s how they usually float. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Climate change is a reality that affects the entire planet and wanting to focus only on one region is reckless. The European summer (especially in the Mediterranean) is like this: record heat waves, droughts and forest fires. Nothing new under the sun. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is a quite major collection of events, impacting quite a lot of Europe, and as per Count Iblis, it is the biggest drought in almost 500 years. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Driving force behind a significant amount of notable news items. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing is for ongoing events. This article is a collection of events, most finished, several not begun. Even if we did treat list articles as event articles, for whatever reason, it seems Eurocentric to single out the European branch of 2022 heat waves till December 31. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could put 2022 heat waves instead. Munci (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That article has the same basic problem, as a hodgepodge of concluded events. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * On closer examination, this article also sucks. Of the five "August heat wave" sections, only Ireland's mentions a heatwave (maxed at 31, only water-related deaths, but still). The others are single high temperatures or slightly broader predictions. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Firstly, I do not see an issue with simply putting up specific notable heat waves for nomination. I think just having had one rise to the level of individual nomination is not enough to consider this for ongoing - if a second posted heat wave occurs, the perhaps we should consider this for ongoing. Beyond that, the organization of the article is poor. The article stratifies by country, but even under each country specific waves are not specified, and it is not specified in many cases the wave in question associated with the statements provided in the article. Just seems like a lot of information thrown together randomly - information that may be useful, but not as much so without context. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from proposer Equivalent articles are ongoing on the French and German versions of Wikipedia. Munci (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Possibly relevant: "Global heating has caused ‘shocking’ changes in forests across the Americas." – Sca (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two different continents, three studies from the 2010s and no mention of heat waves, but yeah, possibly. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As per I think the drought is more notable, and also ongoing. I mean, heatwaves we have had some in recent years, but c'mon, from that article's lede: The European Commission has warned that it will be Europe's worst drought in 500 years (!) – that's something, if indeed no rain is to come soon. We in Europe are not California, that's really new to us. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That could indeed be an alternative. Munci (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That line misrepresented the source, changed now, still seems relatively ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike the July ones, these aren't record-breaking. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current practice of posting items for major events (e.g. Oder) makes the most sense at this time; article organization could use improvement.  Spencer T• C 01:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As before, I keep seeing reports about heat waves and fires in [northern Africa. Presumably the same heat waves. If approved, this needs to be less Eurocentric. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Rakesh Jhunjhunwala

 * Support: Very very prominent figure in Indian stock market and Economy. Supporting inclusion in the RD. --Titodutta (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support High profile billionaire, possibly already generated lots of publicity after his company Akasa Air commenced operations a few days ago. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 06:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maintenance tag will have to be dealt with first.  Schwede 66  15:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article lead is rewritten. --Titodutta (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Needs copyediting (" first big profit", "Rakesh felt some uneasiness in his health, due to which he was rushed to Breach Candy Hospital", etc.); CN tags to be dealt with; a little more clarity throughout (he was investigated for insider trading but paid SEBI - an abbreviation not defined in the article - money; was that a settlement without admission of guilt?); use of currency symbols should be standardized throughout. Career section needs further details about what specifically he invested in: stocks, real estate?  Spencer T• C 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags remaining in the Career section, plus another for his accounting training. The rest of the wikipage looks OK. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Oppose The invasion is over and I haven't heard about it yet? _-_Alsor (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because nothing of note has occured recently doesn't mean it's over. Russia's still there. MyriadSims (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- like the COVID-19 pandemic, the invasion is still happening. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose The invasion is still happening. It is still in the news. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely still happening --M asem (t) 03:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as Russian invasion forces are still in Ukraine this remains ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. The invasion is still very much a major thing in the news. Kurtis (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russian troops are still in Ukraine and sizable parts of the country are occupied. Are you serious? The Kip (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Worster

 * Support Basics covered and sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maung Paw Tun

 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 265 words of prose. Anything more to write about this person? --PFHLai (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: I have a bit expanded; it's now 328 words. Thank you. Htanaungg (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you for the expansion, @Htanaungg. Start class now. -- PFHLai (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – RS coverage? – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support recipient of the National Lifetime Award for Literary Achievement is notable and highly respected writer in Myanmar. Taung Tan (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is really close; would you be able to add 1-3 sentences about what his "renowned works" were about? (Are they fiction/nonfiction, short stories, themes? etc.)  Spencer T• C 01:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spencer: Thank you for your comment. I have added some. Htanaungg (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anshu Jain

 * Support Sourced and size ok. He died on Friday 12 August 2022. Grimes2 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Oder environmental disaster

 * Comment Do you have a main article for this event? I don't think we can post it if there isn't a base article for it & I don't think the section in the Oder article is long enough to warrant a post XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find one, was hoping this nomination would help. If there isn't one then I can create 2022 Oder environmental disaster. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see some updating at Oder. Let's call this article the nominated article for now. --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Update Created separate article, as the section was only 2 sentences long, and this could easily be a standalone article. Nowhere near perfect or even ready to post, but it's a start; any help very welcome! Abcmaxx (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Article def. needs work like OP stated but looks fine currently XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - This is a developing story, with contradictory information from different sides of the border, but it looks pretty significant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - Some sources are suggesting this may be the permanent destruction of the river's ecosystem, which would make this event notable. With improvements to the article, especially regarding sources, I support the addition of this item to the current events section, in principle. StrongPencil (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - As this is causing a major environmental and health disaster in Poland, and seems to be triggering a major political crisis, this is more than significant enough to be posted. However, the article needs some more cleanupno pun intended before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we go ahead with this posting, I would recommend going with ALTBLURB (ALT1) instead of the original blurb. Do not want to posit a "likely" cause unless it is definitively stated. Ktin (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and agree with Kitin that ALTBLURB is preferrable. EditMaker Me (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons already pointed out. Ayyydoc (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Update Length now should be much better, lots of sources. Apologies for the bare references, I tried to add a lot of information in a very short space of time. Concur that the cause is unknown still it seems, at the time of nomination I thought mercury poisoning was pretty much the consensus at the time. Abcmaxx (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. This is an excellent story of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article looks good and will be expanded over time. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,This is a major disaster which will effect people's life. Alex-h (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Germany is also affected by the disaster (should be mentioned in blurb). Grimes2 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support  ... in principle, pending article development. Widely covered for several weeks in Germany, which shares the Oder (called Odra in Polish) with Poland. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and more: this is just one part of the current ecolgoical crises, including heatwaves in Europe for example, which should have a major place along with the invasion of the Ukraine by Putin and Covid-19. Munci (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This article really isn’t ready for the front page yet. Far too slim and vague. Thriley (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted The article is short, but I think it's just long enough and detailed enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems clear that the article was not ready for posting. I see two editors that are okay with the article and at least seven that aren't.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose little more than a stub Polyamorph (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty thin – about 460 words of text, some of which is reax. -- Sca (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This article is in rather poor shape. For example, I just removed the line, "According to anglers, it is unlikely they would ever be able to fish again in the water." Fishermen are not ecologists, and furthermore, the source does not even say that. Recommend pulling. Schierbecker (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This particular ecological event seems to be over, and forecast rain may wash away the 'stale' results. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note – The blurb needs to be updated as this is no longer contained within Poland but has moved downstream to also affect Germany. There is a discussion at Errors regarding an alternative blurb; please contribute there if that's of interest.  Schwede 66  22:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Cetinje shooting

 * Weak oppose Yes, few mass shootings happen there, but this is a result of a domestic dispute and not a terrorism or similar operation. --M asem (t) 21:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I think this may be the country's worst shooting ever (granted independent not that long, and small population, but still) Abcmaxx (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also its not the motive that's the notable part, it is the rarity, location and scale of the tragedy surely. I am unconvinced this would be more notable if 11 people died because the perpetrator was a terrorist.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support this is possibly the worst mass shooting in Montenegro ever, and given we routinely post mass shootings from other parts of the world where they are a daily occurrence, it seems relevant to give this as some kind of global context. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When has that been routine here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's routine when the death toll reaches a certain threshold relative to other mass shootings in the same country, or in cases where there is something particularly noteworthy about the details surrounding what happened (e.g. elementary school children were the victims). We don't post every single mass shooting in the US, even ones with a moderately high death toll, because of how common they are&mdash;but we do still post many of them. Same goes for Iraq back when it was being suicide-bombed on the regular. Kurtis (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think thats true, and I think the yawning fellow up above must actually be asleep to have blacked out his constant repetitive opposes to any mass shooting in the United States, opposes that have largely carried the day. We rarely post mass shootings in the US, and the claim that we do routinely is bs. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

According to above comments, it seems that "family dispute" may be misleading. That should be removed from the blurb. Remember BLP. In general blurbs often are lengthier than they need to be. Omit needless words. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The worst mass shooting in the area ever (not only in country’s history) is something that merits inclusion. I really don’t understand the hangers-on to the notion that domestic incidents are inferior to terrorist attacks. We should be more pragmatic and look at the consequences in first place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - widely covered in major sources around the world, seems like an obvious reason to support. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mass shootings in Montenegro are not usual. Being the worst ever in this country/area makes it ITNR-worthy without any doubt. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)p
 * Support and endorse Kiril Simeonovski's criticism of the apparent hierarchy being applied by other users. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well, we generally post mass shootings which have left 11 people dead in the US. Seems reasonable to post this one. Although oddly, it's not showing up on the BBC's front page, or Reuters. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. My first time doing an ITN update; please let me know if I've done anything wrong. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * post-posting comment: i am not sure if "after a family conflict" is an appropriate description for the shooting. earlier reports, including the one from the guardian referenced in the nomination, mention a "family dispute", but later reports, such as this reuters source, appear to have been avoiding that description.  the reuters source reports that a police director stated that the family killed was "staying at the house of the shooter as tenants", and the description of the victims in the bolded article in the blurb seems to confirm this.  dying (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * DW,quoting Montenegrin public broadcaster RTCG, also refers to a family dispute. -- Sca (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree that previous reports mentioned a "family dispute", as i stated above. however, my point is that the story appears to have changed.
 * compare this earlier rtcg report ("Saznajemo da je tragediji prethodio porodični sukob") with this more recent one ("Policija nema saznanja, niti je prijavljivano, da su postojali raniji konflkti [sic], niti napad u posljednjem periodu Borilovića na porodicu podstanara").
 * alternatively, compare this version of a report from the new york times ("the attack ... came after a family dispute") with an updated version of the same article ("The gunman first targeted the mother and her two children, who were tenants staying on his property").
 * the english dw article you linked has clearly not been updated ("the violence started while the attacker was arguing with his family members"), while the german dw article casts doubt on the earlier description of the dispute ("Warum er sie erschossen hat, ist bislang völlig unklar. Medien berichteten von einem 'Familienstreit'.").
 * as the article has been updated, the itn blurb appears to no longer be supported by the article. stating that a dispute is a "family dispute" suggests that the dispute is within one family (as otherwise, perhaps all disputes are family disputes), and the updated article makes it clear that the shooter borilović was not a member of the family martinović.  dying (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The article remains up to date. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Definitely dubious in terms of significance. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reworded "after a family conflict" removed per above comments. Article no longer identifies gunmen as being a family member.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Salman Rushdie stabbing
Support as nom.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessary; your support is already assumed. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though in my case it shouldn't be assumed, if only because I once nominated an item without being sure whether I was in favour of posting, as distinct from being in favour of having a discussion on whether it should be posted (which logically is all that a nomination really implies). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a stub article, Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, but that currently gives less information than Salman_Rushdie. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose assuming he survives the operations post-attack (which it sounds like he will). If he dies from it, a blurb may be appropriate as that's 100% an unusual death, but as an attack that he survives, it's a minor footnote. --M asem (t) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not even one of the most important stories of the week, let alone the decade (unless he dies, of course). Oh, and your nom statement is offensive to Muslims, even if the "woke" part of it makes it laughable. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A prize-winning novelist who has had a foreign government calling for his death for years, is stabbed repeatedly and is now on a ventilator, has a damaged liver and may lose an eye. Not all those details were known when you wrote the above but still, "not even one of the important stories of the week" seems way off to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (unless of course the poor fellow dies). While it's certainly dramatic, this isn't going to be more than a brief footnote even in his own biography. And yes, the nomination is ludicrously partisan and filled with religious animus. We can and should do better, whatever our feelings on the subjects of our nominations and !votes. ETA: It seems his injuries are much more serious than I had thought. Still opposing posting it if he survives, but my thoughts are with him and his family. Tlhslobus, please consider retracting your needlessly inflammatory postscript to your nomination. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support - depending on how serious the wounding is; but after several hours of surgery, it looks bad. Not sure the logic that this assassination attempt would be a footnote, for a such a traumatic attack on a very prominent author; this goes well beyond book-burnings. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The injuries are indeed very serious, and life altering - no longer tentative. Nfitz (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Amended slightly given there is an article on this specific event Abcmaxx (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Nfitz XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support: would we post (hypothetically) an assassination attempt of Trump, Bin Laden (yes I know he is deceased), Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Cristiano Ronaldo, a current head of state, the current Pope, the previous Pope? I think we might do (God forbid) in all those cases. Rushdie is a worldwide figure and had a sizable part of the global population trying to kill him for a long time, that in itself is unprecedented. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Every single person you noted is more significant.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This isnt even the most important story in NY today (like not a single NY paper/TV station outside of upstate NY itself is leading with this afaict). But Im a woke moslem (who somehow doesnt think Salman Rushdie should die so I guess Im pretty terrible at being both) so discount this plz. If he dies definitely merits a blurb even if he died naturally in his sleep, which one hopes he will do many many years from now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely is in the UK though, throughout all the media.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Id forgotten we were on Her Majesty's sovereign property at ITN, silly me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb if Rushdie dies. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Widely covered; developing. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree this meets significance for a blurb if he dies.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per GCG and above. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Are people really not going to comment on the needlessly inflammatory rhetoric the nominator used? If someone submitted a nomination with most of their submission comment focusing on the strawmen of supposedly "many" Jewish, black, or even atheistic users opposing or supporting one action and how it's emblematic of everything wrong with society, people would rightfully condemn it as biased or WP:SOAP. But for some reason, most people are just shrugging their shoulders here and ignoring this. This should be considered unacceptable discourse, even if the nomination itself is sound. 2600:8802:2718:6700:F556:1D60:9C0C:DAFF (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, Tlhslobus's comments are way beyond the par. I suggest making an ANI report, this is outrageous. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I think you'll find I did. I was hoping the OP might self-revert.  Since they haven't, I'm going to redact it myself. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See ALT1 blurb. -- Sca (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An Islamicist is a scholar of Islam. See Islamicist. You mean Islamists, though even that I dont think is accurate for widely decried. Maybe Islamic fundamentalists? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose If he dies (G** forbid) I would switch to a support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see what the issue here is with posting this. The event is clearly in mainstream news and significant in that a controversy running for well over thirty-years now has come to a head with extremists actually succeeding in finally attacking the author. Either the author's or the controversy's article can be linked, both of which appear to be fleshed out (unless the stub improves). Gotitbro (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A perfectly healthy man just walked onto a stage and is now on a ventilator and unable to speak. His liver is damaged and he is set to lose at least one eye. That perfectly healthy man also happens to be a public figure with sustained international recognition/notoriety/controversy/whatever you want to call it, spanning, at this stage, many decades. Now, according to the above, it depends on "if he dies"? Where are the criteria that state a person has to be killed? Would the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II be passed over if it happened today because he survived? (Probably not, because it's the Pope.) But why death? Talk:2011 Tucson shooting shows that the attempted assassination of a representative of Arizona's 8th congressional district was posted...
 * It's an unprecedented attack, on a scale usually reserved for politicians. It's not as if someone just walked up and kicked him... Three continents (and three countries with significant populations, where the English language is widely spoken) are linked to the individual concerned: India (population 1,407,563,842), U.S. (population 331,893,745) and UK (population 67,326,569). Even his knighthood has its own article. It wouldn't/couldn't set any precedent to post the average "local diarist/national bestseller has argument/gets beaten up" story. This is not the sort of event that happens every day. To get away from the US v UK dispute, it's headline news in Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, France... and Iran, naturally.
 * To conclude, this tweet by Kylie Moore-Gilbert that I noticed on the website of a newspaper sums up the scale of the event: "More than 30 years and a $3million bounty later, Khomeini's poisonous fatwa has finally caught up with Salman Rushdie." (I am not familiar with her but I found it hard to disagree with that line). --Gaois (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Novelist Salman Rushdie, subject of The Satanic Verses controversy, is stabbed multiple times at a public talk event at the Chautauqua Institution in New York.
 * Suggesting a more neutral wording that links to the history (if the attack article is not expanded). He didn't lose an eye or sustain damage to his liver from being "stabbed in the neck" as is stated above: "stabbed multiple times" is the current phrasing from the opening sentence of the attack article. --Gaois (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Friendly reminder Don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news portal. So something that has significant international journalistic coverage doesn’t mean that it’s directly ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The novel obviously is of considerable scholarly interest (elevating a little known apocryphal event) to the mainstream, the controversy around it further generated significant debate on cultural issues and art in both the Muslim and Western worlds which has ultimately manifested in violence on the author. This is a clear case of an encyclopedic event. Gotitbro (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, reasoning and wording per Gaois - the location is less important than the reason behind it. I have no words for the distinction "If he dies ...". I put his name on my talk, quoting a DYK from April 2020, "about free imagination in battle with thought control" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable. An attempted assassination of a public figure who was the subject of the biggest literary controversy in the last 50 years, and front-page news around the world. AryKun (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This isn't a simple attack, given his history and the general threat to his life.  His agent says he will lose an eye and the nerves in his arm were severed.  331dot (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It’s a relevant event. He’s a worldwide known figure. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The latest chapter in a decadeslong saga of great relevance to the arts, a topic area ITN often neglects. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Relevant event getting worldwide coverage and it is definitely a rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This event has a political dimension, because of the Fatwa. Grimes2 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Notable political/culture wars event Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - Used a more compact blurb as both of the ones here have issues in terms of accuracy and wording. Edits/suggestions to WP:ERRORS. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Support Serious attack getting widespread coverage. I don't see why an assassination attempt has to be successful to be posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support widely covered event with long term significance. Polyamorph (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment from a former opposer - Good call. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Article (460 words) seems rather thin. 'Reactions' section fails to include reactions in Iran, where the fatwa originated, and where praise for the attack was expressed.   – Sca (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job it's not the bolded article then :) Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But it's the most relevant article about the attack. -- Sca (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And the bolded article barely mentions it. Because of the sudden change in the tides on this nom, there was barely any discussion of quality. This was a failure of our process.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems mildly awkward to add "in the United States". I'd suggest removing that, our readers are certain to know what country New York is in. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  14:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the location from the blurb, as it is not really relevant to the importance of the event, and the blurb is quite long.  Sandstein   15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WHAT??? The location may not be relevant to Mr. Rushdie's long standoff with the Iranian Islamic fundamentalists, but it certainly is relevant to this news event. Remember the five Ws?  And let me remind you that this main page fixture is called In the News (aka In den Nachrichten ) . -- Sca (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, I agree with Sca here... I don't think removing the location the stabbing happened is a good solution. It is relevant. Especially since stabbings in the US are uncommon. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We Want Where! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The current blurb's ending "in the United States" seems OK. We don't really need "in Chautauqua, N.Y., U.S.A." – such clunky specificity isn't really relevant. As long as we give some indication of WHERE, das genügt. Und schönen Tag Abend noch. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Change bolding to Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. Article is now more developed, and reflects the main reason for the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed by —Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the appositive "author of The Satanic Verses" in this blurb is inappropriate. If it is intended to identify Rushdie's literary career, it makes it sound as if TSV is his primary literary contribution, which is not true; he has written many novels and it minimizes his career to reduce him to a book he wrote over 30 years ago and does not even consider his most significant work. If it is intended to identify the cause of the attack, this too is inappropriate as we don't have any definitive information about the motive yet. Moreover there is sinister subtext that his writing the book somehow caused the attack, which is the apogee of victim-blaming--the responsibility for perpetrating such acts of senseless violence begins entirely with the extremists and their ideology, an author cannot predict or be held responsible if some people decide to use violence just because they don't like a work of fiction. 156.111.111.70 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. Many ITN blurbs are overly wordy, as it is. Omit needless words. --47.147.118.55 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All reports and commentary surrounding the attack focus on the book, mentioning it is neither inapt nor taking up space especially when the controversy is considered in this context. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment His honorific 'Sir' title is missing from the blurb. ♦ jaguar  20:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS is the place for this kind of issue, but I don't think WP:HONORIFICS backs you up. You decide. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In Monday coverage, Iran says it was Mr. Rushdie's own fault.   – Sca (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Heche

 * Compulsory article needs updating and minor clean-up comment, but it has had some work over the last week so shouldn't take long. Kingsif (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're still adding sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks good and more work is being done to it. Very sad news. Very talented actress. Rest in peace. --SitcomyFan (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that this nomination is premature. UK sources reported her death because there, brain death = legal death. But that's not the case in the US. It seems that she's still being kept alive for organ donation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reports are saying brain death = death in California so she meets the medicolegal definition of dead. That said, I say we wait until either a death certificate is produced, a medical examiner/coroner reports her death, or she's taken off "life support".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I reading the reports wrong? Her friends and family have confirmed death, the Guardian (very careful with their sources as a newspaper) followed up with California law (not British), and said life support was removed. Is it perhaps people who have done their own OR at the talk page and are asserting that they don't think brain death should be considered dead who have made you reconsider this? Kingsif (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm confused. The Guardian says On Friday afternoon TMZ had reported Heche was “brain dead”, which under California law is the definition of death. It was announced earlier in the day Heche would be taken off of life support. I see no indication that she has been taken off of life support. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, so, brain dead, body alive. Does that meet ITN RD requirements or do we wait for her to be taken off of life support? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the family seem to be saying dead, California would agree, but it can't hurt to wait. I'd contribute at the talk page if it wasn't ridiculous at this point, kudos to EvergreenFir for trying to control all those, er, discussions. FWIW, I also imagine the time difference may be confusing the Guardian writer based on that "earlier in the day" part. Guess you have time to source her awards anyway. Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - A tragic case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that she is now dead after being taken off life support (Rolling Stone) via her agents. --M asem (t) 20:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Her rep told Variety that she is still on life support and may be so until as late as Tuesday. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is not yet ready to post, so the semantic and distasteful debate above and elsewhere is beside the point. This will resolve itself shortly.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, tragic news XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course. Awards section is completely unreferenced.  Shocked to see so many others supporting posting this BLP with clear violations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As with Dame Olivia, most of these editors are new to ITN and I will AGF are not familiar with our protocols. I trust our admins will maintain their standard discretion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, there were three supports, from seemingly unfamiliar editors. Not many, nor shocking. Perhaps a reply to them will be more encouraging for future participation than a critical aside is. Kingsif (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not disputing your argument but it's not a BLP Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - a quick look through the article indicates it's now almost fully sourced, apart from three single awards - unless I'm missing something else that needs sourcing? Would be glad to add these refs myself but article is protected to extended users only which I haven't yet reached. If that protection can be rolled back a bit, I'm glad to do some sourcing on it - or can assist those who want to if they like. I've sourced quite a few ITN articles now. Anyway, it looks to be just three awards missing citations, but I did just scan through it quickly. --SitcomyFan (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find sourcing for the three missing citations and either place them here or on the article’s talk page. I’ll gladly add them. Thriley (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Saturn Award nom for Psycho:
 * Apple - https://tv.apple.com/nz/person/anne-heche/umc.cpc.7ityj3yk8bsnp7hgvhwk3d72b
 * Entertainment Weekly - https://ew.com/movies/anne-heche-most-memorable-roles/
 * Let me know if those ones are good enough (the EW one should be fine, not so sure about the Apple one). Still looking for the other two. Thanks. SitcomyFan (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * EW is a good source. I added it. Thank you for doing the digging! Thriley (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Much harder to source the Fangoria and Blockbuster ones. So far, the best one I've found is a photo of her attending the Blockbuster ones when she was nominated but it doesn't specify that in text under the photo - https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/33584110e41f3ff6b427fe30f22ed80e/Blockbuster-Entertainment-Awards/ There is an event page for both ceremonies on IMDB as well, I know IMDB isn't usually allowed but unless the photo of her attending the awards along with that is proof enough. Might keep digging later but those two seem to be hard to source. I suppose they could aways be removed from the article if necessary if we can't find sources? SitcomyFan (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They are pretty inconsequential awards anyway. Let’s see if anyone else can find anything. I agree that they should be removed if it is going to prevent the article from being posted to RD. Thriley (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Digging deep, another mention of her attending those Blockbuster Awards (along with picture) in first article, but it doesn't mention the nomination itself. https://web.archive.org/web/20150620091051/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/star-studded-excitement-of-fifth-annual-blockbuster-entertainment-awardsr-featured-at-wwwblockbustercom-74842112.html
 * Edit - think I found one though I'm outside US so can only access the cached version. Perhaps you can check it? It seems her name is listed as a nominee.


 * Direct link - http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/458705/the-5th-annual-blockbuster-entertainment-awards/


 * Cached link - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6GGDrlNi8tsJ:www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/458705/the-5th-annual-blockbuster-entertainment-awards/&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie SitcomyFan (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that website can be seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20220126120234/http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/458705/the-5th-annual-blockbuster-entertainment-awards/#credits . She appeared as a "performer", not nominee (credits section). I don't know if it is a valid source. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think all the nominees are listed as performers. SitcomyFan (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Surprised it wasn't up there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is good enough. There's a few awards that are uncited. I can't find sources for them. But, ITN postings don't have to be "perfect". This isn't a GA review. WP:ITN says in part Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. I don't think anyone is going to say a "Blockbuster Award" is contentious. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. BTW, I have removed two mentions of "posthumous release" from the Filmography tables, as the sources are dated before her death. Please restore that when newer RS is available. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Jacques Sempé

 * Comment Added source for nomination. I just did some editing on the page and it looks like just about everything except the bibliography section has a source.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As just above: the bibliography is sourced to the French National Library, which is linked in authority control. Do we have to duplicate it, that was the question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added that ref now. Rubbing my eyes that a person with the highest interest figure two days ago isn't noticed here. I'm used to that for obscure actors and composers but he was so visible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (almost 600 words of prose), with footnotes at expected spots, and formatting looking fine, and with no troubles found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Paul Green

 * Quite a few unsourced claims. Happy to support if these are fixed. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many unsourced paragraphs. Please add more REFs! --PFHLai (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still too many unsourced paragraphs. The "Achievements and accolades" section has zero footnotes. The "Statistics" section lists no sources. Please add more REFs! --PFHLai (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Bill Russell's number retired

 * Oppose on notability. Great player yes, but I don't think it's worthy of an ITN mention. Plus, the target article contains only one sentence about the event. EditMaker Me (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not blurb worthy. If Russell's death didn't get the blurb, his number getting retired shouldn't either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest SNOW close This lacks sufficient notability, as evidenced by the fact that Retirement of Bill Russell's number is not an article. If his death didn't warrant a blurb, then it follows that the retirement of his number should also not be blurbed. Chrisclear (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – I would note that this is also covered by List of National Basketball Association retired numbers. This is a unique event in the history of this major sporting league, and an opportunity to present a featured article on the front page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest snow close per above. Unnotable and irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose really? Honestly??  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Corky Palmer

 * Support Article could potentially use an another 1-3 sentences for additional detail about his college career but article is otherwise in good shape, referenced, with appropriate depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lydia de Vega

 * Support Everything seems to be sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,Sourced article. Alex-h (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a well-sourced article. Vida0007 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

James Marape elected Papuan PM

 * Oppose There's no change in top executive (head of government this time) and the general election part's gone stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first point is correct (the resign/reelection distinction is immaterial). It's difficult to say what the date of the general election results is when those results roll in over time. Given the party in the plurality currently has just 31% of seats and 16% are outstanding, I would say we still don't have full results.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd figured the main results of an election are votes cast. But yeah, I suppose votes counted also naturally follow. I'll leave it to political scientists and students of democracy to figure whether the key moment in counting is the grand total or the point when a winner is safe to project. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Results have been clarified just now, i.e., not stale; the selection of PMs after elections is ITNR. Gotitbro (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, noting that re-elected is not correct for the blurb as Marape became the PM after the last one resigned. Besides that the article looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems fine. As for "reelected," isn't the PM elected by the Papuan Parliament anyway? Sheila1988 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on quality There is a lack of prose in the preliminary results and the "Aftermath" section is too short. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And in case James Marape is the/a target article here, its "Political career" section ends in 2019. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Nor does it delve into his career as prime minister and as minister beyond the vote of confidence. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is properly updated. Changes of heads of government are ITN/R. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, there was no change, so this must be understood as a result of July's general election (barring any unlikely consideration of this story as hot enough on its own inherent merits). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once aftermath and campaign are updated, it has my full support, as it is ITN/R. echidnaLives (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,Results are out and this is an ITN event. Alex-h (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment I copied the blurb from the news portal, so if it's wrong or inaccurate I suggest the portal entry be amended too. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Has this been posted? Or has it been swamped, moved to the bottom / out of visibility, by all the other events that have since happened? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Pretty stale at this pt. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/Oppose on quality more prose is needed on the government situation after the elections. We see that Marape's party won 38 of a possible 118 seats, which is well short of a majority, so I assume maybe he's in coalition with some other parties? Also, since it's a re-election and not a new PM, the key event is the election result rather than his election unopposed by parolaimrnt. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Briggs

 * Support - article is of a decent condition and I agree that while RD is appropriate, a blurb is not. --IainHallam (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support English illustrator and author Raymond Briggs dies of pneumonia in Brighton, aged 88. Supporting Photo RD, to be clear, mostly sourced. This is just for the sake of seeing a blurb on him somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, a nice article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - everything seems to be in order. He will be missed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miles Warren

 * Article should be good to go now.  Schwede 66  05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There is one cn tag remaining. Also, the "List of designs" section is mostly unsourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced content has been deleted. List of designs is now fully sourced.  Schwede 66  00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to go InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudi Koertzen

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mario Fiorentini

 * I've added some cn tags, I think it will be easy to fix them. Otherwise the article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all of the cn tags. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, you have. Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks ready to go now. Good job. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 44th Chess Olympiad

 * Support. What a tournament indeed! That the teams were that close to each other is agonizing. Congrats to the winning teams. Nice work on the article. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've completed the updates to all three articles. It should be good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hadn't yet reached mainstream RS media as of 16:30. – Sca (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, This is an event that should come in ITN and the article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. ITNR event, results and prose summary are present in the article, which is suitably referenced. I'm working my way through it doing a thorough copyedit, but it's good enough to post now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's obvious Wikipedia is posting a picture of a female player for SJW reasons. By any normal logic, it would make sense to post a player among the open winners (Uzbekistan), since that was the main tournament. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:4165:DC30:DD71:D119 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A pic of a player from Uzbekistan was up there for 23 hours already. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you offer suggestions on how to rotate the pictures, when we have a picture of only one of the men and all five of the women?—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine to use all the images we have available, and refreshing to see a rotation. If there's a need to mix up the gender balance, we also have File:David Howell 2013.jpg, who won the top player award. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, David Howell won the gold medal for board 3. The 'top player' is generally considered to be the person who wins the gold medal on board 1. That was Gukesh D, the board 1 for the India 2 team that came third (getting the team bronze medals). Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * David Howell has been up for awhile now. If we are going to feature the top individual player in the open section, can we also feature the top individual player in the women's section? That is either Oliwia Kiołbasa (File:2021-Oliwia-Kiolbasa.JPG), who was the top player among everyone, or Pia Cramling (File:Pia-Cramling.jpg), who was the top player on Board 1 as Carcharoth suggested. I suggest the wording "individual gold medallist" (which would apply in either case) instead of "best individual open player" to avoid the ambiguity that Carcharoth raised. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure which one is correct, but the infobox lists the "best player" as Howell (men) and Kiołbasa (women). Any blurb should be consistent with the infobox and prose. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested calling it "individual gold medallist" instead of "best player", which can be ambiguous without context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * echoing Modest Genius's comment, i wanted to thank Stephen for rotating the pictures featured. i also wanted to point out that  appears to have uploaded pictures of the uzbekistani team taken during the tournament that are currently featured on uz wikipedia.  in addition, there appear to be photos for ukrainian team members nataliya buksa and iulija osmak, but their articles have yet to be appropriately updated and i do not know if that is a requirement for their photos being featured on the main page.  (wp:itnpict does not appear to consider it a requirement.)  dying (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least one of those photos by Yoshlar is a clear copyright violation of someone else's photo. It wouldn't surprise me if they all were. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * which one is a clear copyright violation? i believe the account is run by someone representing the uzbekistani youth affairs agency, and they are uploading their own pictures for use by wikipedia under a compatible creative commons license.  the account's first upload is of a pdf which appears to address this.  the agency's site also features some of the pictures uploaded.  dying (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought this one was taken from here, but it is actually a little different. So maybe not. The others labelled with the agency name I don't recognize from anywhere else, those seem safer to use. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * actually, i tried digging a little deeper after you had raised the issue, and i think you're right about that picture. the uploaded one looks like a rotated version of the one credited to stev bonhage.  i'm pretty sure the ones taken with the canon eos 5d mark iv are the agency's own, though i am admittedly not sure about the one taken with the iphone 12 pro max.  dying (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lamont Dozier

 * Comment There are also a few uncited sentences. I'll change my vote to support once this gets fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently 7 {cn} tags in the prose. The Discography section can use more sources, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Issey Miyake

 * Comment article needs some work. I've added some cn tags, many of the sources are archived (which doesn't mean that the article is not of quality per se, but perhaps more current web pages can be found and used) and the "Issey Miyake lines and brands" section needs sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently a handful of {cn} tags that still need to be resolved before this nom can proceed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Raid of Mar-a-Lago

 * Wait -- it is indeed unheard of, and I for one am celebrating. However, I believe that we should wait for an actual indictment. It probably won't be very long now. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose — It's not a huge story, and certainly a U.S. focused one, but it could lead to something bigger. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a huge story here in the US, since this has never happened before. But agree, this isn't the thing to post ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how large of a story it is in the U.S.—I live here—but ITN is a global thing. Certain things from the U.S. do transcend ITN's usual disdain for U.S. centric news, such as the most recent blurb in ITN right now and the Uvalde shooting from months ago, but this is not one of them. It's part of a larger story for sure, but globally this has no impact on even someone from Canada. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps surprisingly, this is the Number 2 story on Australia's national broadcaster right now, behind unsurprising, saturation coverage of Olivia Newton-John's life and death. See here. And we see very little about Trump in the news these days. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought experiment -- if a former Canadian Prime Minister were having his house raided, would we blurb it? I'm assuming not. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no requirements for "global impact" at WP:ITN and a specific note above about opposing because a story only relates to a single country. How is it these arguments are able to persist? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is part of a possible larger story related to Trump, but this one event is not the type of news to feature on the front page. --M asem (t) 03:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait a few days until we know if there’s an imminent indictment or not. If there’s not, I’ll support as a raid on a former president’s residence is completely unprecedented in US politics, and certainly notable enough to overcome “America-centrism.” The Kip (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to post anything short of an indictment of Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A very unusual event, but currently no evidence it will lead to anything more significant. If it does lead to anything, that event can instead be nominated for ITN. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this sort of thing is not done even with non-politicians unless the FBI/Department of Justice already has substantial evidence of a crime and knows what they will find when the warrant is executed. Twitter is full of lawyers saying they would advise clients who this happens to that charges are likely coming. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose largely under the principle expressed by Muboshgu. This is part of a larger story. ITN consideration for any piece of this puzzle starts once this case is in court. This raid is just a highly-publicised fact-gathering mission. Not even sure there should be a published article on the raid yet - it's very possible nothing comes of it, and it would be more appropriate to publish such an article after more is known about said raid. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until he is arrested/charged with a crime. This may be likely, but it must happen first. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is at AfD and not overly notable. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  09:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's going to easily survive AFD --LaserLegs (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe if Trump is charged with something. Steelkamp (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the use of federal troops to attack a former leader is unheard of in Western democracies but perhaps unsurprising given that the Mueller Investigation was a years long multi-million dollar attack on Donald Trump that ultimately came up empty handed. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Steelkamp. Hype is nothing without substance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. What is going on here with Trump is far more significant than Watergate. Indictment of Trump is not all that relevant. Qite a few former presidents/prime ministers have been prosecuted and jailed, that can happen for relatively minor legal issues. But Trump has been allowed by the GOP to be a Nixon on steroids and we're only now finding out many of the details of Trump's presidency. Count Iblis (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies, even to Trump. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a huge story, but it does not make for encyclopedic content. The facts currently known are too minimal.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a mere investigation. If Trump is arrested, charged or convicted of a crime, then we can reconsider. Police gathering evidence is not sufficient IMO. Compare to the recent Partygate investigation, which was nominated multiple times but never posted - even when Johnson was issued a fine. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit of a pile on but I agree, this is a part of a much bigger story. Post when Trump is arrested. Polyamorph (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Enrique Oberto

 * Support article is in great condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * New cn tags has been added. Article is not yet ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , dealt with. DoB was the only real issue, but found a source for that. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look at those {cn} tags. It seems to me the problem was that the REF did not mention those years of elections. I have re-written and simplified that sentence to make it closer to what is in the REF. The same REF was also used later in the section for the 1998 election but the REF mentions nothing happening in 1998. I think another REF is needed. Announcements of retirement from politics were probably in the news, but I'm not sure how accessible info would be for something that happened in the previous millennium. --PFHLai (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Generalized the 1998 statement to just read as he left parliament in 1999. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best way to solve this. I too have found it impossible to find a source to support this content. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good now. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daren Gilbert

 * Support Looks ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herb Roedel

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bill Graham

 * The prose has 10+ {cn} tags. The Electoral history section is unsourced. The Honours section needs more footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zofia Posmysz
Resistance fighter in World War II, Holocaust survivor, who wrote an audio play about her experiences in Auschwitz, which was turned into a play and an opera. The article, created by Edison and written mostly by Poeticbent and myself, seems in reasonable shape. I believe we should receive credit, but don't know where to put it. I would have nominated tomorrow, after consulting more obits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine MyriadSims (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think more sources should be added about the death to the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the two English refs from above (both same AP text, different images), and added the one fact that was not yet in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, Thanks! <span id="AdrianHObradors:1660038641497:WikipediaBWLCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="BawlCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've added two more sources to verify three works that were uncited. Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks so good. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Interesting. -- Sca (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olivia Newton-John

 * The source is a verified FB, but it's not been picked up by any news outlets (yet).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's starting to get around. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Parade is (so far) the highest quality source to report it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC reporting just now, so that should start the chain reaction for want of a better word XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Cosmopolitan, CNN and The NY Post XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was F5-ing BBC, so yes, that's solid for me. Article has some clean up needed though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb regardless of the discussion on the talk page, she really had only a few roles that made her significant, and the article failures to capture why she should be considered the top of her field. Articke is in poor quality (filmography etc needs refs) --M asem (t) 20:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to put it as a blurb, that is only there as a comment XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per Masem MyriadSims (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb She had a career of almost 60 years with many famous roles and awards, I think that is blurb worthy. -- Maykii (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Going by previous similar nominations, it isn't. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb She's more famous for her career than many other notable people. Do not confuse that with being so important or transformative that she deserves a death blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added RS to nom.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for RD Significant gaps in referencing. Oppose Blurb A prominent figure in her profession to be sure but well below what we look for in a blurb. Note we did not blurb Kirk Douglas or Olivia de Havilland who were giants in the business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "the business" here is more music than movie, where she clearly left most Hollywood legends in the dust. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Looks good to me AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Iconic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:4380:2540:0:0:0:40CC (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, article is in good shape Polyamorph (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If that's what it takes to get the smirking terrorist of the front page. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are better, easier ways (including forced replacement by a grinning Annemiek van Vleuten). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the smirking terrorist was naturally supplanted by a very somber Nodirbek Abdusattorov. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who was swiftly uninstalled by Mariya Muzychuk, whose eyes betray a vague happiness the corners of her mouth dare not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Yes, she's on the upper end of famous, but I wouldn't say she's transformative in her field. Not ready for RD as there are uncited paragraphs and a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support RD with picture in theory when quality is improved. Haven't we done picture RDs before for this middle ground of popularity? -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  10:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD ... when ready. Oppose blurb per Masem, Muboshgu. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support RD You would have to be completely out of your mind to not include this in the RD list. This is just like the pathetic bickering around Meat Loaf's death, which never ended up being listed. Meanwhile, completely forgettable baseball players of decades past get listed with no issues. 173.240.190.3 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If ONJ played Baseball, Ice Hockey or American Football she'd be a GOD to the Wikipedia gatekeepers. 58.179.71.231 (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support 61.69.136.118 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article is of a good standard and certainly noteworthy. Mark E (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Too many missing citations. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.43 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support RD once the quality of the article is improved. Oppose blurb per Masem and Mubosghu. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD .... what really is the problem? Seth Whales   talk  21:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD For the most relevant aspects (early life, career summary, death) the page is perfectly reasonable and referenced to standard; it's not a nomination over being marked for quality and, compared to other recent deaths, it's ludicrous how this article is being delayed, as if the main stumbling block was a lack of citation for some one-off session in the late-80s, despite everything else on the page. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 22:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All the content must be sourced. There’s no debate. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are four entire sections without citation.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Source the discography, please.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If all those who voted to support this article being posted had actually helped with sourcing it, it would be up by now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Same can be said about those opposing. But it's a bit vulgar to say so. Polyamorph (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * no, it's not vulgar. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Er, yes it is. Everyone here are volunteers. Polyamorph (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's vulgar in the "common folk" sense. That doesn't make it "obscene" or "profane". Not precisely, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Vulgar as in distasteful, rude, obnoxious. Take your pick. Polyamorph (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's my oafish upbringing, but I see bluntly frank, brutally honest or (perhaps inconveniently) true. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Nothing wrong with thinking that. Just normally we don't blame others for not pulling their finger out here since we're all volunteers and especially when it is a case of pot, kettle, black. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Orange-tagging the article and adding new cn tags. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Never mind the 159 existing citations on this page, let's focus on the 28 missing ones and ignore the passing of this icon?? --Annihilannic (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The icon was not passed. She was listed on Deaths in 2022. To get on RD, please fix up the glaring problems. Twenty-eight? That's too many to ignore. --PFHLai (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's not counting where citations are needed on the three -ographies. Probably brings missing cites up to 50-75 range. M asem  (t) 03:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD There is no excuse for her RD listing to take this long. Nobody cares if the article has a couple minor issues. Just add the link to the ITN box and we can be done with this insufferable "debate".24.80.7.130 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Many of the "citation needed" tags seem to be for uncontentious issues, like her having seven hits in a row. BD2412  T 03:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Having seven hits in a row is exactly a place I would fully expect a citation to make sure that WP editors aren't doing their own fancy mathematics to support that. --M asem (t) 03:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article lists the hits. BD2412  T 05:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But is not obvious that they were consecutive, even for a fan. —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet (3 days so far). She will be given a state funeral yet a few minor issues on the article is blocking adding a link to the ITN box. This is ridiculous bureaucracy. ~ Ablaze (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stats Dame Olivia's article has had over 4 million readers so far this week and those are superstar numbers. For |Olivia_Newton-John|Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri|44th_Chess_Olympiad|UEFA_Women%27s_Euro_2022_Final comparison, note that the 4 articles highlighted in our blurbs have only had a few thousand readers.  Even the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final has only been averaging 1500 readers per day which is so low that it would look bad even at DYK.  These numbers demonstrate that just about nobody is using the ITN blurbs to click through on our news selections.  All this discussion therefore seems fruitless.  And, looking at the actual top reads for yesterday, it's interesting to see hunger stone at #4.  These provide a warning when the level is low: "Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine".  A good analogy! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not a newspaper, we care zero about viewer counts. We are looking for quality, not quantity, because we are posting a highlighted link on the main page, so it better represent the best we can do for an article. That past editors on ONJ's page have been sloppy about sourcing until now is not ITNs concern. M asem  (t) 12:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that such gatekeeping is pointless because there is no fence. The huge flood of readers has already visited the article and moved on.  Time is of the essence in such cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the purpose of ITN was "gatekeeping", I'd agree. However, the purpose of ITN is showcasing high-quality content, be it through OTD, ITN, DYK, or it being featured. If it's not high quality, it won't be linked from the main page. People can still find it if they wish. The system works. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, Andrew's numbers prove that readers found it. It's why ITN tries to avoid simple "popularity" as readers rarely have problems getting to those articles. We want to feature a better worldwide and topic-wide split of news that also represent quality WP work. M asem  (t) 01:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a boost is viewership from being posted as an RD, which is not to mean that readers won't go to the page if it is not posted. For example, Mo Ostin died on July 31 and was not posted until Aug 6, but still saw an increase of ~5000 views/day after the delay.—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Just get it done already for God's sake! If she's not up by Monday then we shouldn't even post it at that point. MyriadSims (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment What you need to do is stop complaining because it's not published yet and start improving her article. Wikipedia is not a news portal, it's an encyclopedia, and the quality of the articles is fundamental. You can debate the rule that requires the quality of these to be included in MP, but this is certainly not the place. No matter how much you add other "Support RD", it will not be included as long as it remains orange-tagged and missing cn tags to be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you compare it to the standard of some other articles that get do posted it is actually in very good shape. ITN is not GA of FA review! The orange and cn tags were added (by you) since the nom. Polyamorph (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah, but there are still more than 20 tags that need to be fixed. We're not going to make an exception for Olivia Newton-John and overlook them. And yes, I've added them...because there is unsourced content. What needs to be done. There's no debate. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am making an attempt to go through and source the outstanding cn tags; hopefully it should be in better shape relatively soon.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * great! _-_Alsor (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If every voter had taken care of three or four citations, this would have run two days ago. Thriley (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A few citations still needed for television roles and tours but otherwise article looks good and well-sourced. Once these minor subsections have been sourced (and I know how painstaking it can be - I'm relatively new to this but I've sourced a few RD articles now, one of which had a huge unsourced filmography, that almost got held up due to no citations in television roles but got there in the end) I think this should be listed. Not sure what the debate about the blurb is above as another comment says it wasn't nominated for a blurb, so I'm mainly supporting RD here but I'd also support blurb if it came to that as I think she was hugely famous and relevant even just based on her ″Grease″ role and her enduring popularity in the decades since. SitcomyFan (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance. Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One subsection is now fully sourced. Only one more subsection to source - the Tours section if other editors can give a hand, then the article will be completely sourced. SitcomyFan (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did look for sources for the concert tours, they are surprisingly difficult to find. Polyamorph (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A good resource might be www.onlyolivia.com - came in handy for a couple of the television roles in addition to other citations. If possible, though, try to add other sources as well in case it's considered not strong enough. It might be a good jumping off point, though, as well. SitcomyFan (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added some. I can see you have too. The Only Olivia source is not great but it is better than nothing and certainly good enough to post in RD to prove the tours existed. It is frustrating that some of the stuff that is getting posted on ITN that are barely more than a stub and this now 267 reference article is being kept off the main page. Polyamorph (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that stubby ones will be rejected, too. Just like poorly sourced ones. Longer articles have more contents that require citations. That's life in Wikipedia. --PFHLai (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know they do get rejected, but not all. And I see some user responses to unsourced information is to just remove it to get it posted. That's also life in wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * take Leandro Lo for example. Many of his achievements are not sourced. Yet ONJ can't be posted because a few albums, appearances on TV, tours don't have sources (despite the fact these are basic facts). I am not complaining about the other articles being posted. Just the inconsistency in stringency of the application of the rules. Polyamorph (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The achievements in Lo's article are sourced by a preceeding source that covers the full list. If such a source existed for ONJ's albums, we can use that approach too. M asem (t) 18:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The albums are sourced. I added them. Not all tours are yet. But back to Lo's article, I'm talking about in the text and in the medals lists where there are achievements and stats that are unsourced. Polyamorph (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the line "Main Achievements (Black Belt)" there is a source [1], which is the source that we assume covers the full list given its location preceeding the list. Same with the second list in that section. I would think from looking at the source that that also covers the infobox information, and arguably the source shoudl be reused there too. M asem  (t) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source for the infobox information is not clear. There is in text content that is not sourced. The issue here is if you're going to apply GA and FA criteria just to get onto RD then you need to be consistent. Polyamorph (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel like understanding it, don't understand it. It's your right to do so. But it doesn't change how ITN works. There are no more issues to debate. If you consider that Leandro Lo's article did not meet the quality requirements we demand from ONJ, you can orange-tag the article, include tags and ask people to improve it. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where have I said I don't understand it? Of course I understand the importance of sourcing and verification. But it is not being applied consistently here at ITN. Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is. In every nomination for RD or ITN. Everytime. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That would suggest we're infallible. Which we most definitely are not. Polyamorph (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's a matter of whether mistakes and omissions are caught at the right time. To ignore {CN} tags already there? Let's not. -- PFHLai (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is setlist.fm considered a RS? If so, many of these tours are listed on there. SitcomyFan (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As it is a wiki, I guess not. But might be enough to prove the tours existed? Polyamorph (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Article quality is now sufficient enough. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source I don't see any reason not to post this anymore. Holding it up any further is damaging to the project. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree in general terms, but for this wikibio we are not down to one or two yet. -- PFHLai (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rule says "one or two". Not seven. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're progressing in that direction. --PFHLai (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and many thanks PFHLai for your help with some of the sourcing. Polyamorph (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe some people have been on vacation or something but Dame Olivia Newton-John deserves to be notificationed along with all the politicians and athletes. The 70's SOUNDED like O N-J. Multiple Top 10's and an iconic movie role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurnkerner (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the biggest disasters I've seen on Wikipedia in a long ass time. We post snooker athletes no one's ever heard of but can't get an actual icon up...its disgusting. 107.119.65.125 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There’s over a dozen Citation Needed tags in the article. You can help get it on RD if you assist in finding sourcing. Thriley (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed one - good call - and maybe at this stage, more of these claims need to be removed if they're holding up posting this article. Obviously, we should keep checking for citations (I've just added one and removed a tag) but if they're all holding it up, more might need to be removed. A lot of them seem oddly superfluous yet weirdly specific. And most of them seem like Original Research. SitcomyFan (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two more statements removed, as from reading them seemed like original research and was unable to find any sources to back up. Could someone do the same with the rest? Mark E (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment once again we have horror and indignation at the fact this encyclopedia will not post an article full of unsourced claims. We also have the regular WP:TOP25 comparisons, that somehow we should be comparing ITN articles to the hits garnered by Love Island (or any of its derivatives), Kim Kardashian or anal sex. At some point we'll need to just foreclose those conversations at they are not relevant to individual candidates here: if people believe we should be posting "popular" news items, regardless of their quality, that's a debate to be held at WT:ITNC.  That this conversation has not been held already is immediately damaging to the individuals in question who appear to be aiming to convert ITNC to "what has Donald Trump said and what is on the front page of The Sun".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not full of unsourced claims. There are over 300 references. Any remaining issues are extremely minor and users are doing their best to fix them. Wikipedia is not perfect but no one can say this article is "full of unsourced claims". It simply isn't. You can post a dead walrus that no one had even heard of last week but not this? Polyamorph (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP so it needs to be watertight. Comparing it the walrus is futile, this isn't about notability.  Very famous people are still people and their articles need to comply with BLP, regardless.  You're better off fixing the remaining issues than complaining about why this won't be posted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been helping to fix the issues! Several other users have also put in ALOT of effort sourcing the article! It is my opinion that it is good enough quality. RD do not have to be perfect, it is not GA or FA. Name the contentious content that is yet to be cited? Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's remarkable that RD now reads "...Olivia Newton-John · Freya · Anne Heche..." None of these are getting treatment of adequate quality IMO but so it goes.  The fuss here is largely irrelevant because our readership decides for itself what it will read. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The article now more than satisfies posting requirements. Please post. Polyamorph (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree. Article now fully sourced.--SitcomyFan (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all your efforts! Special thanks also to  and  who helped source the article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I’m still upset that Meat Loaf didn’t make it to RD due to a similar situation with numerous CN tags. So glad ONJ made it through. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Polyamorph, but you have done a lot more for this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is sourced, so it is time to post it. And please protect from IP edits, there are now repeated edits like this . Kirill C1 (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Marking ready with attention needed to avoid this going stale. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment At this point, since it's gonna get archived in a day or so, I think it's already encroaching on Stale. MyriadSims (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously ready now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Alas, stale at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 12:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Polyamorph (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * post-posting support and comment I’ve added a cn tag in the fifth paragraph of the subsection "Early success". But this does not prevent the article from finally being included in RD. Great job on fixing the quality of it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Roger E. Mosley

 * Nominator comment: Needs additional 2-3 citations in career section, filmography needs completing and referencing. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section has remained unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leandro Lo

 * Wait the article right now is pretty bare bones, half of it is just his death. I'll say a bit more bio info is needed, then support, article looking much better now. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC); edited on AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until article is updated 88.230.3.245 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready it is a stub at the moment, working on expanding it. Lewolka (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC); edited on Lewolka (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think "Assassinated" is quite the right verb here. Our own article says that's for "a head of state, head of government, politician, member of a royal family, or CEO", and I would even have my doubts about the final one in that list. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Intentionally shot which would amount to murder although probably need to wait for the conclusion of the trial to assert. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I think it's ready now, I just added an image and I'm pretty much done with content, if anybody has any comments, @Abcmaxx @AdrianHObradors @HiLo48 I'm planning to nominate it for GA later as well. Thank you Lewolka (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, ready to go AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good for me to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator support huge credit to for really making this a completely different article from when it was nominated.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Any updates on VRT clearance for the nice pic? Without VRT clearance, it's best to not include the pic with an uncertain copyright status while this wikibio is RD-listed on MainPage. It's been nominated for deletion at WCommons, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately after first agreeing to release that image and send the form, the copyright holder has changed her mind so I immediately nominated the file for deletion. Lewolka (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I've removed the pic from the wikipage. --PFHLai (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David McCullough

 * Not Quite Ready Article is in relatively decent shape for a change. Just a few cites needed and the one section at the bottom needs a reference. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found citations for the narration section; some of them were just episodes of shows already cited. There is one CN tag left for his audiobooks. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a citation for the audiobook statement; Let me know if you think that that citation will work as it is or if we should break it up into several citations. KConWiki (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Request: Can anyone with any concerns about this article's readiness please post comments about what they feel still needs work? Thanks to everyone for all they do for WP. KConWiki (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: This looks good as far as I can see. KConWiki (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eike Christian Hirsch

 * signing up as updater, thank you for making it easy Grimes2! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's short, but it meets the criteria. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Alberg

 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Boudjemaa Talai

 * This brand new article is a bit short (380 words of prose) but still long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found at expected spots, though I have to AGF all non-English sources. No formatting issues. And Earwig could not find any problems at all. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the article is short, but have enough content and sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD /Blurb: Archie Battersbee case

 * Support Stub, but notable. Grimes2 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as unimportant. Oppose blurb or RD on quality grounds. In terms of a blurb, this is a human interest story hyped by British media, but objectively unimportant; lethal accidents of children and legal disputes about keeping comatose patients alive are relatively frequent. Even as a RD entry, the article is a mess and not ready for the main page. There is very little prose, all in the lead. The rest is WP:PROSELINE bullet points and a table of court decisions without context.  Sandstein   14:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose in general, this doesn't appear to be a case with long-term repurcussions. But I will stress the Oppose on quality - an article that is basically a timeline rather than a discussion of the issues around this isn't going to be sufficient for main page (and the fact that hasn't been done here suggests that this doesnt have the impact suggested). --M asem (t) 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment To begin with, if it’s a stub it cannot be supported: the quality of the article is something fundamental for it to be included on the Main Page. And this one is far from being in good condition. The RS, moreover, do not consider it as a landmark decision, so it may seem that the impact and the notability of the case is rather mediatic than legal, juridical and medical. And it should be noted that the UN intervention is at the request of the family, not by the decision of the organization itself. I have my doubts that it is ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An improved version is maybe candidate for RD. Grimes2 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notability. Can only find it as main story on British publications and tabloids and doesn't seem to have any major repercussions - nowhere on AP and CNN International, hidden on NYT World, not the top story on BBC Global, and so forth. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb ... as lacking case-law significance. RD subject to quality/length standards. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, For lack of notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on all fronts. Dreadful article. Barely notable for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is, honestly. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this would work as a RD as there is little biographical information, for obvious reasons. As a blurb, the article would have to be completely re-written to replace the timeline with conventional prose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting story, but not for ITN. I'd suggest DYK. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Appears to be getting significant coverage internationally, including an article in the New York Times: Thriley (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose an isolated death. Polyamorph (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the consensus for now is against blurb. I change the nomination format. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD as well, the child doesn't have an independent biography. Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not necessarily a requirement in a case like this. The child would never have an independent bio but his death here can be well documented to be an RD. (But there needs to be improvements still on the article) M asem (t) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically the boy died in May (according to the judiciary report). An independent article would mean this would pass the notability test for an RD automatically, I don't think that is the case here. The case is making the news but I don't think it should be ITN or RD. Polyamorph (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb on notability and Oppose RD due to the article being about the case rather then the child who was the centre of it. This just isn't notable enough for a global encyclopaedia and most folks over here in the UK have bigger things to worry about, such as which Eton Psycho will be our next PM and the impending recession. --SinoDevonian (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem: RD requires a biographical Wikipedia article. However, the nominated article Archie Battersbee case is not a biography of the deceased a 12-year-old child. It does not qualify for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Having a standalone bio article is sufficient for RD posting, but RD postings are not limited to those with biographical articles - just that those without biographical articles should still be reviewed as a normal ITNC that is otherwise targetted for RD posting. (Eg: I am pretty sure we have had RDs of criminals that are well identified on the page about the crime they did but lack a standalone article) M asem  (t) 20:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Examples: In_the_news/Candidates/May_2017, In_the_news/Candidates/January_2021. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These two examples meet the exception "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis." What group wikibio does Archie Battersbee belong to? -- PFHLai (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence on In the news/Recent deaths is "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article ...". Please give us something to read about the subject's life. Right now, the Archie Battersbee case wikipage only has his DoB and his protracted death, nothing on the twelve years in between. Is there anything to write about? For RDs of criminals, at least there would be info on the crimes they committed, and maybe daring escapes, etc. -- PFHLai (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the "IAR" examples given above are still biographical articles, and this isn't. Good point. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, if there is a section in the nominated wikipage that gives the deceased a biographical sketch that is nicely written and fully referenced prose (not bullet-points!), it may be okay to bend the rules and include it on the RD line. -- PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems the [Charlie Gard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#%5BPosted_to_RD%5D_RD:_Charlie_Gard case was posted to RD] but Alta Fixsler doesn't have an article. No comment on this nom, just some data points for y'all. Question? Do the UK courts routinely sentence children to death? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ...That's one hell of a misunderstanding of what happened. It's not sentencing someone to death if they're already dead... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , you're an American, right? This sounds alot like the Terri Schiavo case. Remember that? In neither case did the courts sentence anyone to death. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Schiavo's husband and legal guardian asked for the feeding tube to be removed in accordance with her wishes. In these cases, the children's primary caregivers - their parents - are being overruled by the courts and the children condemned to death. It's really quite abhorrent, really. Anyway I don't care if we post this or not, I just vaguely recalled a previous time UK courts ordered a child to die and shared the link to how it was handled that time. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ??? How is it being condemned to death? The children were not alive, their brains had stopped functioning. Crazy take. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe read up on the case before commenting such absurd nonsense. The boy died in May from a catastrophic brain injury. The blood supply to his brain was cut off. His brain and other organs were necrotising. Polyamorph (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Laserlegs won't bother with the detail, he'll just see it as a chance to make specious claims against Brits. In the time it's taken me to write this sentence, there's a good chance another kid in Amurica has been shot to death.  Pointless posturing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It might be big in the UK as a human interest story, but it's not news. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's overdone in the UK and far from news, nobody wants to hear about it in the slightest. Not a bio so no RD, I am honestly surprised there is an article that merits keeping since there hasn't even been a novel legal approach (let alone a precedent set). Just some parents struggling to accept their kid's death not shutting up about it, coinciding with silly season. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support RD The event is notable enough to have an article about his death, I feel that merits him appearing on RD. A biography section about the boy would be welcomed, but sadly I don't think there is much that can be said about the life of a 12 y.o. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No legal jurisprudential importance disclosed, and no biographical info either. Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even having an article is baffling. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a lack of importance. It's suited to DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose while desperately sad, it's just been a protracted case with no benefit to anyone. As far as I know it's made little or no difference to UK law, to European law, to anything other than the tragedy of those personally involved. Wouldn't even meet RD criteria as Archie was sadly only know for his death.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment suggest this is closed down, never getting close to the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sad for the family, but it’s an overblown case in the UK media and isn’t blurb-worthy. (I’d question whether the article is encyclopaedic - it is unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST) 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7555:23F:F48F:BC86 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Escalation in the Gaza strip

 * Oppose Orange-tagged for NPOV issues, discussion on talk page continues. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. It's also part of a larger conflict that has been going on for too many years. Unfortunately, it has become routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:RECENT, future developments unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per BK and due to their as yet being no significant development in the overall conflict. Also the idea that airstrikes are against PIJ and not against Gaza is a POV issue in the hook. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Added source links: BBC, AP, Guardian, AlJazeera
 *  Oppose Comment – Per Alsor. Significance of this particular flareup not apparent in the context of modern history. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reopened after a good-faith close by User:Kiril Simeonovski. Most oppose !votes referred primarily to quality issues which are addressable, and most notability concerns read to me as effectively "wait" !votes because they remarked that it's still too early to understand the notability. I think there is a realistic possibility that consensus could evolve after the issues with the target article are addressed and more information comes out. <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> 💙 23:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing new here. Such incidents are far too frequent to be recorded here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems to be heating up. BBC, AP, AP, Reuters, DW The Gaza toll put at 31 Sunday by AlJazeera. – Sca (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Truce announced --M asem  (t) 14:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support or wait. Notable enough to appear on my Spanish news, but article needs work, would be nice to at least get the POV tag removed before posting. AdrianHObradors (talk)
 * Weak Oppose Truce has been announced now + unfortunately, not much different from the normal situation. The Kip (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Truce due to begin at 20:30.   – Sca (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability (but not quality yet) due to the high death toll. It's significantly higher than it was yesterday. I added an altblurb focusing on the casualties, but I feel like I could've worded it better. Feel free to offer improvements. <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> 💙 20:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And if the death toll is lower tomorrow? These things have been going in cycles for 70 years. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was referring to how the total death toll of the this military operation has reached a point where I think it's blurbworthy. Unless people already pronounced dead suddenly take breaths again, the death toll cannot go down. That the Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for so long does not mean that the occasional escalations with very high death tolls are insignificant. <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> 💙 02:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, if the death toll somehow goes lower tomorrow we are talking zombies and that warrants a blurb imo <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659954117492:WikipediaBWLCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="BawlCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We're simply talking about a failure to communicate. Maybe it's a difference between Australian English and whatever your version is. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Official death tolls cannot decrease, as far as I know. It is physically impossible. Not sure what it is about Australian English that might render it otherwise. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Truce holds, for now. Toll still reported as 44.  – Sca (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dean Carlson

 * This short article is just long enough to qualify (331 words of prose); more would be nice, but it makes sense that it's short as his NFL career was short. Footnotes are found at expected spots. There are no glaring formatting issues. And, Earwig found no problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support short but enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Schowtka

 * This brand new article is long enough to qualify (412 words of prose), has footnotes at expected spots, and there are no formatting issues. This wikibio is READY for RD. It would be nice to see more info on what he did as mayor, though. AGF on all non-English refs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Narender Thapa

 * This short article is just long enough to qualify (342 words of prose), so a little more expansion on his accomplishments (how many goals has he scored? he must've done something to stand out to get himself selected to the national team.) would be nice. There are footnotes at expected spots. No glaring formatting problems. Earwig found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always @PFHLai. I really scoured everywhere I could and could not get more than this from WP:RS sources. The irony is that Narinder's own FB page is a treasure trove of information. But, unfortunately, we can't use any of that. Will give it some more search time tomorrow. Ktin (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Ktin. No rush in the expansion. This wikibio IMO is good enough for RD purposes. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Any more SUPPORT!votes? --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Haydar

 * Comment: Lead could do with expanding to reflect the rest of the content. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, now that changes have been made. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have expanded the lead, pinging to reevaluate. If more needs adding let me know.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Cherie Gil

 * Comment Filmography section needs more sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did what I can, but there are still several entries that do not have refs. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * do you think the cn tags that are still there are easy to fix before this nomination is archived, or is it expendable content? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. These tags are mostly on her work in the late 1970s and 1980s and finding contemporary references for those are next to impossible. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Cherie Gil does not need RD. Her article had |Peter_Schowtka|Neil_Castles|Mario_Fiorentini|Miles_Warren|Daren_Gilbert|Cherie_Gil more views than all of the currently listed articles in RD. Her article even had more views than similarly hard to fix Fidel V. Ramos. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. May Ms Gil rest in peace. We'll let this nom rest in peace, too. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Judith Durham

 * Support Article looks good, it is updated and sourced. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support For I know I'll never find another you. Needs some work. Some unsourced paragraphs. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support She was and continues to be very well-known in Australia. Internationally much less so, though as a group The Seekers were quite popular. JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article does not look good. More sources are required. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite widely reported. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Issues have been addressed. Good to go. Mjroots (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The "The Seekers" section has only one footnote for three paragraphs and that ref is a fan site. The "Solo career" section has a couple of footnote-free paragraphs. In her Discography, the list of EPs has only one item (just one?) and it is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to the other issues noted, the discography is largely unsourced. There are only citations for select chart positions, not for the albums without chart positions noted. This is far from ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A false objection. Almost every "disc" is a Wikilink. Sourcing needs to be in those articles, not necessarily in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Article is good for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * About 10 {cn} tags still remains. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Five {cn} tags and less than two hours of eligibility remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Chinese military exercies around Taiwan

 * Comment stop calling it "Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan" it was a total of six exclusively Democrat members of congress who attended via US Airfore transport. We should post this, but the blurb needs to be adjusted. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you can start with renaming the article then. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  10:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yep --LaserLegs (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I think this might deserve a blurb, but the military exercises article is being considered for deletion and has problems, and the visit has already been discussed this week and wasn't posted. If it is to be posted, the exercises article should either be improved or merged. echidnaLives (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * EchidnaLives the military exercise article was proposed for deletion as it was named before "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". It has been moved, but and will probably stay. Still, I agree it should get resolved before the blurb gets posted, and could perhaps still get posted only with Nancy Pelosi's article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edited AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Military exercises are not that rare (see for example this list). If things escalate and China invades Taiwan, that will surely deserve posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that this one is in direct response of an event, and all around Taiwan. I think if Russia decided to do a military exercise all around Hawaii, it would be news as well. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – So far it's just gunboat diplomacy, 21st century-style. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Military exercises around Taiwan have unfortunately been a fact of life for the better part of the past 30 years. While it has escalated recently, these exercises have in the past waxed and waned. Most news articles are focusing on the outcome of Pelosi's Taiwan visit and only mention military exercises as a sort of follow-up or side article, rather than the main focal attention. If it does become a crisis or standoff, it should be titled as an actual "crisis" and re-nominated. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support they invaded Taiwan's territorial waters and fired into them, encircling the whole island. This makes it very different to just a normal military exercise, it's the closest you can get to war without one. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Still posturing in light of the Pelosi visit. Nothing new here. --M asem (t) 14:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This isn't a significant development, and the fact that one of the sample blurbs slips the reliable wiki-hooray-word 'notable' in there just shows how much of a reach this is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait -- this is in the news, but it's not blurb-worthy, and it may not be. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing notable here. Many countries, including my own, Australia, routinely conduct dick-rattling military exercises in that region. Until we get independent reports from reliable media in countries that aren't involved in such mine-is-bigger-than-yours activities, there is really nothing to report. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Castles

 * Long enough with 500+ words of prose, footnotes at expected spots, formatting looks fine, and Earwig reports not troubles, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Articles is of sufficient quality for ITN/RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are some things missing. Firstly, for a person involved in motor car or bike racing, they would drive for a certain type of team, and drive a certain type of car, which is not explained at all. There is no mention of any of this. Further, there is no mention of any career ups or downs. He raced for two decades, and there is just a comment on the number of placings. For example, he came 4th and 5th overall in the whole league in a couple of years. There are also issues that are skimmed through example in various online obits, but raise issues that need to be dug into further in historical news sources or books - The WP article gives an anecdote that he used firearms against race officias, and another link says this was a recurring pattern. This would need to be explained, as any reader would expect that there will be sanctions (maybe even criminal) for shooting at/threatening other participants/officials. There also seem to be sanctions for physical altercations with other people, and allegations of racism that are not addressed. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The depth of coverage for this article is sufficient, as all major points of his life are covered. The source you provided above (thecheckeredflag.co.uk), to claim that this article does not cover trivial details and speculated consequences of his actions, does not appear to be a reliable source.  Moreover, allegations of racism by one rival competitor from a single source violates WP:UNDUE. , , : I think this may be ready to go, notwithstanding the sole oppose above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the employer/team of a sportsperson not a relevant fact? How is it trivial to know what the consequences of assaulting a sports official/umpire is, especially with a gun (when the subject himself is bragging that he fired at a race official)? I'm sure many people who monitor this area would know that you try to flood the place with articles (regardless of quality) for WikiCup points Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so we finally discover the true reason for your oppose votes and obsession with my ITN noms. Coupled with your unsubstantiated bad faith aspersions.  Good to know that we can disregard your bad faith votes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Err, right, the issue of WikiCup distorting behaviour has come up plenty of times in the past across a wide range of fora, not about any specific editor, and I am not participating in any metric-based competitions. And you haven't explained why it is ok for a sportspersons bio to have no information whatsoever on what team they represent, career progressions, team changes etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize I nominate ITN articles outside of the WikiCup competition, don't you? Are you going to also argue that I'm "flood[ing] the place with articles" to gain offseason WikiCup points too?  You're really looking silly now and reaching. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources covering his career stats (ESPN, Racing-reference.info) mention the teams he represented or changes (apart from racing under his own name). If you want to invent some names out of thin air, be my guest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you do (or should) know of the issue of gun control in the US. The lack of laws in this area makes it more likely that he escaped any sanction than to be charged with any offence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD Despite concerns about depth of coverage, meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 18:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Brittney Griner

 * Comment: Article not updated with sentencing information.  Spencer T• C 15:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t see any extraordinary significance in sentencing a person who was found guilty for smuggling drugs. Many people around the world get punished for committing similar crimes on a daily basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The signficance comes from the fact that she is a US citizen (and a black lesbian) prominently detained in Russia just before its invasion of Ukraine. The potential for her to be used as a political bargaining chip, or treated badly because of her identity as distinct from her alleged offence, is relevant. I don't think the story currently merits ITN, but it would be naive to ignore the context. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A high profile case sure, but not a particularly noteworthy sentence. Drug smuggling gets punished far worse in countries like Malaysia or Indonesia. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  16:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Other countries' severe punishments are not relevant to this case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * all im saying is for the crime committed, the punishment isn't particularly severe. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  19:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kiril and 4iamking. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the lasting significance. Kafoxe (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Oppose - The significance of this story obviously comes from the context of international tensions between USA and Russia over Ukraine, and it may gain in prominence when more reactions come it. But at present, I don't think it merits posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suspect that if she had not been notable for her basketball career, we wouldn't even have an article about this case. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose thank you for updating the article and attempting this nomination. ITN is only for a small number of highly prominent news events. The conviction is a mere formality, hardly news at all because the outcome was forordaned.  Jehochman Talk 19:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Downs (architect)

 * This brand new article is long enough to qualify (480 words of prose). Coverage of the subject's life seems fine. There are footnotes at expected spots. No glaring formatting issues. And, Earwig could find nothing to complain about. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RD/ blurb : Olga Kachura

 * Support but no blurb, war is happening, people die, more at 11 This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD only No way an article this short is sufficient to show importance of a person to merit a blurb. But the article is short but otherwise all sourced. --M asem (t) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD only She was Colonel and Ukrainian separatist. Here a List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Nothing special. Grimes2 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: Stubby entries are generally frowned upon. This wikibio currently has merely 222 words of prose. Any more stuffs to write about? Perhaps her TV interviews? Her trial and prison sentence in absentia? How she died? The medal award from Putin? .... Please expand this article. --PFHLai (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit short on time but if no one updates it I'll try doing it myself. It is true the article is a bit bare bones at the moment. <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659729417263:WikipediaBWLCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="BawlCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No rush. This nom still has a few days of eligibility. --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No stub anymore: 1638 characters (275 words) "readable prose size" Grimes2 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 302 words now. Bravo! Clearly out of stub territory. Do any uninvolved editors want to re-review this expanded wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and tagged with notability. The article is right at our minimum length requirements, but is confusing and incomplete. Worse, she does not appear to be notable or pass WP:BLP1E - the article was only created after she died, and all but one of the sources are post-mortem too. Her death could be covered in a single sentence in one of the articles on the Ukraine war; a separate biography article isn't justified IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Modest Genius, I have added one more source pre-mortem. And she also got awarded Hero of the Russian Federation. There are not that many, and I would say that alone warrants an article by itself. All your arguments also apply to Natalya Kachuevskaya, who became known for her death. Do you feel that article should be deleted as well? <span id="AdrianHObradors:1660036540175:WikipediaBWLCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="BawlCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article with notability, I did not nominate it for deletion. It's possible there are additional Russian- or Ukrainian-language sources which could demonstrate notability. I still don't think the current article passes WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E). Kachuevskaya is irrelevant - she isn't the subject of this ITN nomination, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Deloplaine

 * Support. Looks good enough for RD. Great work! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Famechon

 * Wait as per @HiLo48 says, article needs work. MyriadSims (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The top half of this wikipage currently has zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Early life and boxing career" section is still unsourced. Please add more REFs --PFHLai (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jackie Walorski

 * Support -- article is in good shape to post. Rest in peace to all who died in this tragedy. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, everything looks ready to go. BD2412  T 22:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 3rd death in the U.S. House this year. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support the article is fine, but it goes into little depth about her work as a congresswoman in recent years: nothing about her activity in 2021 (when she became the Ranking Member of the House Ethics Committee), nor in 2019, nor 2014. I think a brief reference to something she might have done in those gap years would be interesting. In the "U.S. House of Representatives" section, there is no prose about the last elections (although they are mentioned as tables further down the article) and there are tags that need to be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Can an admin please post this? It's been more than 12 hours. Thanks! -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is not ready. There’s an orange-tagged subsection. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Orange tagged section is minor and easily fixed. Rest of the article is fine, more or less. Curbon7 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I dislike how committee info is entered on US House bios. She wasn't serving on those listed committees; they were likely her initial assignments in 2013. So, I took them out and added some sourced prose on her tenure on the Veterans Affairs committee and sourcing her being a ranking member on committees. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready now. Thank you Muboshgu! Kafoxe (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Melissa Bank

 * Long enough to qualify (600+ words of prose), with footnotes at expected spots, with no formatting issues, and no problems found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article quality seems fine. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alastair Little

 * Support, this seems strong enough. BD2412  T 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of {cn} and {better source needed} tags that should be addressed before this nom can proceed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. {cn} tags now gone. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vin Scully

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Referencing is quite poor and needs work. Tagged for ref improve. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , please re-review. Should be good now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He's the GOAT. I'm adding sources (and myself as an updater) as we speak. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved and g2g. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It's ready.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support yep, good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Bawden

 * Comment: Article is a bit messy, death is not mentioned. And "antipope" should be changed to "conclavist antipope" in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianHObradors (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the article, added a mention of his death to the body, and removed "Antipope" from the infobox. Cheers, gnu 57 21:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Genericusername57, looking much better to me now. Support  Oppose per Muboshgu.   Weak Support after new source  <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659562555681:WikipediaBWLCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="BawlCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ; edited AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC); second edit AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I am aware of the guideline that notability is not to be debated as long as there is an article, but this person doesn't even have any notable professional achievements (or being notorious as a criminal). He was a random layperson with no religious training who dressed up and got a few family members to vote him in as pope. It's not like there were a bunch of actual clerics who broke away. All the coverage is based on a gimmick Bumbubookworm|Bumbubookworm]] (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bumbubookworm Personally I agree with you, but he somehow managed to end with a documentary made about him and the Wikipedia page. If the page isn't discussed for deletion, then it fits the criteria for RD. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem that I see is not what makes him notable. We have people who are famous for being famous and they can be RD. But, this is In the News. Is this in the news? I don't see any RS covering this. Is his funeral home enough to post on? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * His death has now been covered by The Lamp: . gnu 57 23:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Until a discussion is opened on whether he meets the notability guidelines, he is. And the quality of the article is sufficient to be included in MP. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) US congressional delegation to Taiwan

 * Comment I want to support this as significant, but where is the update? China-US relations? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ...because that article is a mess --LaserLegs (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - This is basically the opposite effect of Nixon in China. But the diplomatic and political intrigue might not be measurable enough from a standpoint of notability. It might be more notable if the delegation was led by the President of the United States, or if it were associated the passage of a specific treaty.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the visit is stressing US / China / Taiwan relations, it is currently only posturing. There may be potential for a larger story (China has forces on the border for some military action) but until that happens, this is just a diplomatic visit. M asem (t) 15:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, unless a significant incident actually happens, this is just saber rattling on both sides. Morgan695 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Or rhetoric-rattling, perhaps. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait... to see if anything of significance comes from this much-ballyhooed piece of political theater. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's a major reaction from China. The proposed blurb is misleading: Pelosi is not a member of the US government - she's a legislator with no executive power. Even if she was, merely visiting and giving a speech isn't significant enough. If anything changes in Taiwan's relationship with China, that would be important. But a mere visit by a politician from a friendly nation isn't enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The United States Congress is very much a member of the US government. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not really clear that relations are strained or that Pelosi's visit is significant as yet. Yes, it is in the news, but I oppose the current blurb and descriptive theme <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 16:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - its a visit by a lone congressperson (sure in the line of succession but still has no say on US policy wrt China or Taiwan). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Per LaserLegs. It is significant enough though to be on the front page of Spanish newspaper // El Mundo//, with an update saying China sends a destroyer off the coast of Taiwan in view of Pelosi's visit. (Translation from Google) --AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unless anything significant happens, the rest is just sabre rattling, at any rate this is premature and not different from any other diplomatic event affecting relations between two countries. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  16:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Guardian update says Pelosi vows to "stand by Taiwan," and makes statements against "autocracy." Reuters quotes her pledging "solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan." – Sca (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I've changed my mind. Super strong support based on this earth-shattering revelation. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No US or China policy change, just another junket. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. Mohandas Pai

 * This is a brand new article with only 305 words of prose and just long enough to qualify. Coverage of the subject's life seems a little thin, but okay. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Formatting looks fine. And, Earwig did not find any problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. However, it would benefit from an expansion on "his contributions to the development of the city of Manipal" so that readers would appreciate why he was "referred to as the 'architect of modern Manipal'." --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for this note. Did my best by adding some additional content. Please have a look when you have a moment. Not stellar but beets minimum expectations imo. Thanks again. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Ktin, for the additional materials. Looking good. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert E. Simanek

 * Support Slim but meets minimum standards; adequate coverage for what he was notable for.  Spencer T• C 05:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lars Tate

 * Support. Article appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Cornell

 * The "Catholic Worker" and "Writings" sections each has only a single sentence. More info is in order. --PFHLai (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fleshed out the article. Does it appear ready? Thank you for your help. Thriley (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, ? Thriley (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anastasiya Kobzarenko
Comment- Article does not show the cause of death. Alex-h (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * because we don't know, but at age 88, perhaps no surprise. The sentence about her death is there now. Can't find a place of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * adding: this woman did miracles for libraries of children, making the buildings pieces of art, see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Ok. No English sources. Grimes2 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph A. Doorley Jr.

 * Support Sufficient, (cmt:) no identifier in Wikidata. Grimes2 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Ayman al-Zawahiri

 * Support blurb There are several sections which have citation needed tags, but I expect this to be resolved very quickly. I'm unsure about a blurb though. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting a blurb, this is a VERY significant news. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending page improvements. This is a story we should blurb! This isn't "old man dies", this is a military operation taking out a top terrorist. He's been wanted since 9/11. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Per above. He's the leader of al-Qaeda. This is quite significant. GWA88 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As other editors have commented, al-Zawahiri leads al-Qaeda, the role in which he had succeeded Osama bin Laden, perhaps the world's most famous terrorist leader. Especially given that widespread expectations had been for him to be hiding in Pakistan, there is no longer a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, and there is no clear successor to al-Zawahiri, creating the possibility of a split in the group. I mean, if England defeating Germany in the Euro is considered relevant enough for ITN, there is no reason this shouldn't be.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: This is a major development and though we are not a news site, this one in particular warrants categorization as an event and not a mere death.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 22:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;Not only was he the longtime leader of al-Qaeda following Osama's death, but he was actually the brains of the organization even back when he was his predecessor's right-hand man. He was one of the main masterminds behind numerous al-Qaeda operations, including the 9/11 attacks. He merits a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added proposed blurb -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Al Qaida hasn’t carried out a successful terrorist attack, or posed a threat to US national security, in years if not a decade-plus. ( Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks ) Joe Biden claimed he would cease US military operations in Afghanistan. 23:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4C09:2403:9138:C38E:53FA:7544 (talk)
 * Get off your soapbox please.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The September 11 attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda and planned by al-Zawahiri had a significant impact on US foreign policy and global geopolitics in the 21st century. This drone strike is a significant event. Geopony (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m being completely objective & NPOV in saying that Al Qaida hasn’t carried out a successful terror attack in years, and hence this is not sufficiently notable for a blurb. Just look at the Al Qaida timeline I linked to.
 * In contrast, Joe Biden, with his 37% public approval rating, is desperate anything resembling a win to save his party in the midterms. That’s why he’s making this out to be a bigger deal than it actually is. 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 2601:642:4C09:2403:9138:C38E:53FA:7544 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment death section is orange tagged for expansion which is silly but the video messages section is unrefrenced and needs to be fixed. --23:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Terrorist mastermind and internationally wanted for the past two decades. I’d say this qualifies. The Kip (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb mayor development and dead of biggest terrorist since Abu Bakir of Islamic state. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Age and nationality rightly overshadowed by cause and effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If the killing of one of the world's most wanted terrorist (not to mention he was leader of Al-Qaeda), doesn't warrent a blurb, what does? DJMcNiff (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we make sure this is a claim on the US's part? I'm not seeing confirmation from those on the ground so right now its the US Military's word. --M asem (t) 00:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-conducts-successful-counterterrorism-operation-takes-out-significant-al-qaeda-target-afghanistan <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is there non-US confirmation of the death. It is unlikely that this a lie, but its not 100% proven. M asem (t) 03:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NYT has it confirmed by the Taliban: "A statement from the Taliban condemned the operation. “It is an act against the interests of Afghanistan and the region,” the statement said. “Repeating such actions will damage the available opportunities." also CNN ". "Multiple streams of intelligence" confirmed Zawahiri was killed." and others      <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @  04:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The CNN is fine then for that. But as a note, just because the Taliban condemned the operation doesn't mean the leader was killed, just that they condemned the US attack. M asem (t) 04:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 04:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Obvious relevance r.e. war on terror This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is in good shape. Suggest removing the text with "citation required" tags per WP:BLP.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Biden video on cspan about it just for reference not for inclusion <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @  01:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, considering its importance to US foreign policy history. Mover of molehills move me 01:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 Major news, Should be alt2, location is important. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely in the news. Aaron106 01:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How can there be so many SUPPORT !votes for a wikibio with about ten {cn} tags in the prose, and an orange tag for inadequate referencing in the Promotional activities section? --PFHLai (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's because this is far and away the biggest headline news event in the US news cycle at the moment, and likely of international interest as well. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 05:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps !voting was done without looking at the wikiarticle, which is NOT READY! --PFHLai (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do some work on the article. I just added a few missing citations. "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article," right? And he's no longer a living person now... <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 05:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * can you take another look at the article, I added a few citations and trimmed a few statements which were old and I couldn't find recent information about. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 06:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, cn tags have been dealt with. Article is now fit for posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb Stephen 06:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose change to blurb: add link to Assassination of Ayman al-Zawahiri in the blurb. Something like "Ayman al-Zawahiri (pictured), the leader of Al-Qaeda, is killed by a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianHObradors (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I Support that change. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING  👑  16:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 European heat waves

 * Oppose There have been heat waves all over, and the worst in the European case is mostly over. M asem (t) 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would have been suitable in ITN a couple weeks ago, but the worst of the heatwaves is over now. greyzxq  talk 13:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose a proseline disaster that has become an incoherent mess I cannot really discern what the current status is. Most updates seem to be at least a week old though. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, We've had heatwaves in different parts of the world, it is not a subject for ITN  Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) July 2022 United States floods



 * Oppose for now - article is orange tagged, so ineligible at present. Also, you need to propose a blurb for this. Might support in principle once article updated, as it looks like a significant loss of life. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This ITNC is duplicate of the one below about Kentucky floods. --M asem (t) 13:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, including Las Vegas in the system that primarily affected the Eastern US is disingenuous, that should not be considered part of the same topic. M asem (t) 13:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * no it is not, It was disscued that the former 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods has to be merged with July 2022 United States floods Cabin134 (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * NOTE: This was ITN Nominated 2 days ago in In the news/Candidates. An admin needs to close this ITN Nomination as one is already open. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)