Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2023

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

(Posted) RD: Bill Pinkney

 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Lead could be expanded a bit, but overall the article is in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gil Brandt

 * Support once improved There is a few spots needing sources, but I do think it is closer than maybe the Nom may have thought. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Refs have been added. - Indefensible (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Appear sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some tagged sourcing issues e.g. not supported by exisiting citation, or multiple statements not all covered by the single cite.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Citations lacking, and article format is also somewhat poor. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Johannesburg building fire

 * Comment - it is not an abandoned building then there are probably more than 125 people in it  Abo Yemen ✉  13:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was abandoned; there were just some squatters there. — Knightof  theswords  13:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh
 * people who know nothing about the incident would probably confused too  Abo Yemen ✉  13:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Article is a stub.  Ping me when it isn't.  I'll reassess then.  -- Jayron 32 14:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now. Article has been destubbified.  -- Jayron 32 12:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Jayron. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Per above. It's a tragic disaster but the article needs to be expanded more. Once expanded, I'll reconsider. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 15:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above. Article remains a stub. The   Kip  16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support due to expansion. The   Kip  18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The effects are limited to one building and less than 200 people. As of yet, there are no wider ramifications at even the local level. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ...What? routinely post incidents killing 10-15 people. ITN has no "MINIMUMDEATHS" requirement. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're only posting something because people died, then we shouldn't post it at all. It's the overall ramifications that matter, not how it affected a small handful of people. ITN has a poor track record on this. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I typically at least sympathize with your comments regarding this but come on. This is like not posting the Boston bombings because only a handful of people died. Not to accuse anyone of WP:SYSTEMIC, but I doubt the same argument would be used if around 150 casualties occured in America or the UK. — Knightof  theswords  00:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's ridiculously false to say it has no wider ramifications. This has massive ramifications which are already all over the national press. Zaian (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If this has resulted in mass displacement, the government passing a law, etc, then you should include it in the article. Right now, the article makes no indication that the subject is significant except for a WP:BIGNUMBER argument, which as far as I'm concerned has zero weight. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Doing exactly that now. I know this is going to sound like lacking WP:AGF, but is there a counter rule, WP:FARAWAY or WP:NOTENOUGHAFRICANS? Zaian (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You still haven't added any content to suggest that it even meets the bare minimum of having an article at all, let alone significance to post on the front page. And yes, this is about as blatant of an AGF violation as you can get, especially since this is a position I've held quite consistently for all geographic regions. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon man, it really feels like you are starting to bend over backwards to oppose events like this. You can't just keep citing policies and hope one of them sticks. This is another event where we would have this posted very quickly if it happened in a Western country, more or less per what KotS and Zaian note. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You know very well that I consider meeting WP:N to be a requirement for posting. And these veiled accusations of racism are growing rather tiring when you've seen me apply this standard to every instance that comes up, regardless of country. I understand that you have very little experience with Wikipedia outside of ITN, but I assumed that the recent village pump discussions would have made it quite clear that yes, these policies do apply, and Wikipedia as a whole is getting impatient with ITN's belief that it's above policy. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The blurb is excessive in my opinion, suggested altblurb1. - Indefensible (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notability / Oppose quality An incident that seems similar to the Greenfell Tower tragedy a few years ago, which was posted. Article is very short, however, so I would only fully support if/once it's expanded.Khuft (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its hard not to make that comparison, but I think that we're seeing a massive difference in the verified response that makes this far less notable - Grenfell involved rented flats and launched a massive investigation into why the building burned as it did. Here was an abandoned warehouse being used by homeless, and unlikely to draw the same type of attention Grenfell did. I'm not saying this is a reason not to post, but I don't see this getting the same type of attention in the media. M asem (t) 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a story to be told here (president's visit to the site, hijacked buildings under cartel control and rented out to the desperate, locked gates and blocked exits, ongoing housing crisis, inner-city decay, the affluent fleeing to the 'burbs...) but unfortunately, 24 hours on, this sad little stub isn't telling it. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on it. And there is a huge story here. For instance, people displaced by the fire refusing to trust government-provided buses to emergency accommodation, as they feared they were being used to round up undocumented migrants (with some justification, based on previous actions by officials). And the specific building is notable as it was built at the peak of apartheid as a Pass Office to enforce the pass laws, which regulated the movement of Africans to restrict their presence in "white" cities. Zaian (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Every major disaster like this has a Swiss cheese effect. In other words a variety of small circumstances, which by themselves wouldn't cause a catastrophe, does when combined together. These types of stories are always interesting and encyclopedic, and should merit inclusion on ITN regardless of "long-term global significance", which really at this point in ITN/C's history, is just a polite euphemism for "doesn't affect me in any way". Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the "sad little stub" comment. It was borderline untrue when I wrote it and is now certainly no longer the case. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is quite short but it is perfectly good enough now. And the notability is clearly there per Moscow Mule and Zaian. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because the article is good enough & the fire notable enough. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb (with updated death total) as the article is no longer a stub. Kudos to for their work on this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb count needs to be updated again unfortunately; easier to just use "at least" in my opinion. Also maybe we can switch the picture? - Indefensible (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohamed Al-Fayed

 * Comment tagged to the article's talk page. Khuft (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; preemptive oppose blurb since I can see the blurb noms coming. Blurbs only go out for massively influential people (IMO we should have a blanket ban on them for people other than heads of state/gov't but that's a discussion for another day). Important though he was, Nelson Mandela al-Fayed was not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD - Sometimes seeing RD's posted can really shock you. Never knew until now he died, RIP. Not notable for a blurb though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I would have straightforwardly voted to "support RD" had it not been for the plenty of {cn} tags that still needs to be worked on. A notable figure, but some cleanup is needed for his article. Vida0007 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a minor adjustment: as his death occurred on August 30, I moved this nomination to that date. (Also did the same for the Jimmy Buffett and Bill Richardson RD noms). Vida0007 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose 11 cn tags, work needs to be done on sourcing before this is ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment no more CN tags, please check now . – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It says in the lead and infobox that he was married to Heine Wathen and had four children with her; this is unsourced and not mentioned in the rest of the article. Also the Infobox and start of article says he was born on the 27 January but the prose in early life (which should serve as a source for those) only mentions his birth year. Once these issues are fixed it gets my full support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved that sentence about his wife and kids out of the intro and into the main prose, and copied a few footnotes from the wife's wikibio. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jan Jongbloed

 * Comment: Ok, I think I've managed to make slight progress with my latest edits, but there's still so much work to do... Oltrepier (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose While it's well sourced, the article is a stub. Could use some expansion in terms of his career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Sonni

 * Support Article's length, depth and sourcing is good enough for RD Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) The worm in the brain

 * I would suggest to put this to DYK, as the article meets the criteria. The blurb is technically incorrect, this is probably the first time for a worm in the brain but not in humans in general, those are rather common. Tone 15:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Parelaphostrongylus tenuis is common enough in deer, though AFAIK, it hasn't been found in humans. -- Jayron 32 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose While lots of news sources picked this up, the sources all seem to cover this as a "human interest" or "weird news" kind of story. Not the sort of coverage I'd expect from an ITN post.  -- Jayron 32 15:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Jayron points out, this is more in the weird news category (which often does get wide coverage but fails to be actually much of scientific value) rather than serious news. --M asem (t) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose As others said, it's not an important news story. Rager7 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because as Tone has pointed out, this is exactly the sort of thing that's more suited for DYK than it is for ITN. 118.107.244.120 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per above.  4me689  (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This actually IS a candidate for DYK because this story and the surrounding scientific coverage results in significant expansion to the article. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Lots of international coverage so it's in the news. DYK has no need of such as that section has such a surfeit of articles that its backlog is over a hundred and they are running 2x8 sets every day to try to clear it.  ITN is quite the opposite with just four blurbs in a week making DYK about thirty times more productive. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose DYK material. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Gabonese coup d'état

 * Conditional support - obviously meets three of the points pf WP:ITNPURPOSE; many are likely looking for this article, it's receiving little coverage from most western outlets due to it being night rn, and compounded with the current ITN listings, emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, However, the article needs serious lengthening. — Knightof  theswords  05:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done my best with the little information that has surfaced in the last few hours. I hope someone can expand it as more details emerge. It's a little late at my place and need some sleep! Bedivere (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way I would like to acknowledge all people who have worked on the article and have expanded it significantly both in prose and referencing in the last few hours. It certainly looks good enough for ITN! Bedivere (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality The article needs some work before it's ready to be posted. Pretty clearly notable as change in head of state. Also doesn't this count as ITN/R as Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government? Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per above. Article's too short at the moment, but details are scarce for now and they'll filter in over time. Proposed ALT1. The   Kip  06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support has the basic details, as we know them at this early stage, so I think good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT ITNR combine it with the ITNR election article in bold.37.252.92.217 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This happened before in 2019 and the coup was not successful. Rushing to announce this as a done deal is therefore improper per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But…this time the coup is successful… _-_Alsor (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit, from the sources, it is not clear how this will end, so we better be careful with the blurb. In any case, even an attempted coup where "the president is removed from power" is ITN material. --Tone 09:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, combine with ITN/R The coup appears to be a done deal, and is definitely a watershed event in Gabonese history, bringing down the ruling family that has held power since 1967. Support having the election also in bold as the two events are directly connected. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The news is covering the coup, AND the coup article is of sufficient quality. Do NOT bold the election article, however, as it is of bad quality; there's entire sections that lack any prose.  -- Jayron 32 12:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. And comment: Do we need to include the "Ondimba" part of the name? He's much more commonly known as just "Ali Bongo". And (w/r/t both suggested blurbs) specifiying "Gabonese" in the election article link seems redundant. AltBlurb2 suggested. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Successful coup, and articles appears in good shape. --M asem (t) 13:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a notable event, significant not only in history of Gabon but in the amount of press attention this is getting. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the coup was successful and the news is on it perfect for me.  4me689  (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support coups d'état (at least the successful ones) should be ITNR per se (I think that this debate was already opened, I don't know how it ended). The article is good, with enough information for what has happened at this time, taking into account that the Reactions section may be expanded in the next hours. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tone. I think you forgot to give credit :-P Bedivere (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is required to give credit for an ITN nomination. If you really want to receive credit, you can click on the link yourself; nobody will mind. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh. Tone did give the credit in less than a minute. Thanks by the way Bedivere (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should the blurb make it clearer that he was president before the election? It could be read that he had just taken office. Maybe "Incumbent President Bongo Ondimba" or "following his reelection in the 2023 Gabonese general election"? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the second suggestion, I will modify it. Good point. Tone 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but wait—the article needs more work before it's officially posted, not to mention a previous failed coup occurred in 2019. Until there's more confirmation on the situation, I recommend waiting another day or so. MateoFrayo (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Wait-this article itself appears to be about ITN ready, and there appears to already be consensus as well. This may have been posted a bit prematurely, but the article seems ready reguardless so it should have no impact. We need to fix the link for President Bongo Ondimba, however, there seems there was some vandalism or something of the sort it appears and that should be fixed immediately if it hasn't already - yikes. Daneellis114 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability&mdash;I haven't reviewed the article's quality or sourcing, but in terms of overall notability, this is a major event for Gabon. The country has been ruled by the Bongo family for 57 years, and the fact that they've been removed from power will have significant ramifications for Gabon's political (and possibly economic) trajectory. Kurtis (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mike Enriquez

 * Oppose 3 unsourced statements in prose aside from the one cn tag, but the television programs and awards section needs refs (5 uncited programs and 11 uncited awards). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more references. Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nancy Buirski

 * Weak oppose Needs some ref work, DOB is uncited and there's like 2 uncited statements. Would also like less end of paragraph citations but not a major problem. Support Looks good enough now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Added refs. - Indefensible (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems an extra sentence was added, but not supported in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be prose elaborating on items listed as "Notable works" in the infobox. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Refs, too! --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) And things in the intro are supposed to be only highlights or summaries, and should be explained in more details in the main prose, where footnotes should go. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katalin Rényi

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guillermo Teillier

 * Support Article is alright. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support --Bedivere (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Hale (bass-baritone)

 * Oppose The biggest issue is the unreferenced list of videos.  Schwede 66  00:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Schwede66, I'm sorry. I found the section as it is, - the same information once in prose, once in a table, which may be good for different types of readers. All recordings in both sections are referenced by Muziekweb (with the exception of the Schumann, for which I already found a review). I copied the ref now to the list of videos, for clarity, - sorry that I missed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I see one statement without a source but it shouldn't prevent this from being posted. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a ref to that sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like this is good enough to be posted as a RD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: August 08 (musician)

 * Oppose Discography needs refs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 139 words of prose. Stubs are not supposed to be used on the RD line. Please expand this wikibio. Noms with less than 300 words rarely get much support. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still 139 words long after two days. Time running out soon. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tina Howe

 * Support Article is well written and sourced. Meets requirements. Golem08 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Haworth

 * Support The article is sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article’s sourcing is good, could use some more length but current length is fine for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Expanded. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jayanta Mahapatra

 * Oppose Article needs some work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many bullet-points of unsourced materials. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rich Stubler

 * Support I see nothing wrong with it. Looks well-cited. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)  Oppose At the time there were no glaring citation problems but the orange header says otherwise.  ❤History  Theorist❤  21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A few unsourced sections as well as sentences here and there.—Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently 7 {cn} tags in the prose. The table of his coaching record (one row?) is also unsourced. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pat Corrales

 * Support Article is in good shape. That cn tag has been fixed too. Golem08 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has enough sourcing and depth to meet ITNRD standard. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing addition: 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup

 * Support Not the biggest names, but objectively the biggest tournament for basketball outside of the Olympics. Prose feels adequate enough. The   Kip  08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The FIBA World Cup has always been just a qualifying tournament for the Olympics with very little to no significance. This description has gained additional importance after FIBA decided to move the World Cup to odd years, only a year before the Olympics, which discouraged many world-class players to play in order to avoid playing tournaments two summers in a row. United States with youngsters looking for an opportunity to compete for the Olympic squad, Serbia without Jokić, Greece without Giannis, Latvia without Porziņģis, Canada without Jamal Murray all support that description.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kiril. Also, I would argue that the US's NBA finals and even the college playoffs are far more famous than this, even though neither has the global impact. --M asem (t) 12:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support ongoing, strong support blurb - ITN doesn't require stories to be of "global significance" or be subject to (largely unfounded and editorialized) claims of having very little to no significance. I'd say that this meets points I and III of WP:ITNPURPOSE; not to go full Andrew Davidson, but it's received half a million views in the past week and is receiving extensive coverage from the likes of the BBC, Forbes, CNN, AP, SCMP, ABC, The Guardian, Huff Post, etc, and it's also likely attracting the interest of readers who may not be aware of this but may be interested by say, perhaps misreading it as FIFA. — Knightof  theswords  14:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This tournament is an ITN/R item, so a blurb on its conclusion should be posted. As for ongoing, those arguments that you present make a much stronger case for posting US Open, but we simply can't and don't overload ongoing with sport events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So overload with elections and natural disasters? — Knightof  theswords  15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me what was the last election or natural disaster posted onto ongoing? I don't remember that we've ever posted such events there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is literally one election on RN, plus an adjacent item where Cambodia has sworn in a new PM, amounting to effectively half of the template. Until very recently, ITN was basically more natural disaster porn than anything else, since that was effectively the only thing we could agree to post that wasn't WP:ITNR; it wasn't until some users raised a fuss about the trillions of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DISASTERSTUBS that were being created as a result. —  Knightof  theswords  15:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked you about the "Ongoing" section, i.e. the penultimate line between the blurbs and the "Recent deaths" section, not about ITN overall. This is a nomination for ongoing, not for a blurb (as I already mentioned, a blurb should be posted when the tournament concludes as it's an ITN/R item).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, hence why it was a weak support; I'm not sure if we should broaden the scope for ongoing as much as we should for blurbs. Perhaps make any long-term ITNR blurb item ongoing? — Knightof  theswords  17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, blurb on conclusion. It's ITN/R, but it doesn't rise to the level of continuous news coverage that an Ongoing requires. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, weak support for a blurb on the competition's conclusion. The Olympics is the far more prestigious international competition, with most of the major basketball powers (USA, France, Serbia etc) sending their B or C teams to FIBA. With the exception of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, none of the worlds top players are participating.--Newtothisedit (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb on conclusion&mdash;Literally just copy and paste Black Kite's rationale as my own. He put it succintly and I have nothing more to add. Kurtis (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denyse Plummer

 * Comment Discography is uncited. Rest of the article looks good, AGF on the offline sources. Curbon7 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The discography is available over at Discogs, which is included in the article under the external links subheader. Kurtis (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kurtis Discogs is not a reliable source per WP:RSDISCOGS and WP:UGC. Discogs works as an external link but not a source to something. The discography needs proper sourcing before this can be posted. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that Discogs is not generally considered a reliable source, but the discography section is just a list of albums. The only thing a citation would add to it is verification that it exists, and for that, I think the Discogs external link is sufficient (though perhaps not ideal). Kurtis (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kurtis Well, WP:ITNQUALITY says Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. I don't think that discogs counts as a "clear" or "reliable" source in line with this criteria. Even if it's just as verification that an album exists, we need reliable inline sources for it. I recall many articles have a simple discography (just album and year) and don't get posted because the discography isn't sourced. I see no reason to change that. It's not like RD is desperate to post more noms, we only have a quality standard for RD, so that standard should matter. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and registered in 2008, yet I didn't know you needed high-quality sources used as inline citations to verify the existence of albums or other creative works. I had thought that this would've been one of the limited situations in which user-generated websites, such as Discogs or IMDb, would be acceptable to be used as sources.
 * Goes to show that even a veteran editor like myself can still have a lot to learn. Kurtis (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kurtis Using WP:UGC for even basic facts is controversial, but not necessarily wrong. It might be an appropriate exception to the general rule of WP:UGC. For example WP:Citing IMDb says it's disputed, IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications. My real main point is that such ambiguities should be avoided entirely when we're posting it on the main page, highlighting it and telling our readers this article about a recent death was high enough quality to put here. RD is solely about quality, that's what makes it great and cordial, but that quality standard should matter then. If it's debatable on reliability then it isn't main page worthy. But don’t sweat it, experienced editors are humans too and I enjoyed this civil and cordial conversation with you. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise&mdash;collegiality is something that ITN could use a lot more of, so to have an exchange with someone that doesn't involve having anyone's opinions denigrated is a welcome breath of fresh air. Kurtis (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;A well-written article with adequate referencing. Kurtis (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discography is still uncited. Article looks fairly good otherwise. Support The quality now is alright for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom I've cited what I could in the discography, removed what I couldn't, and marked the list as incomplete since it's definitely missing items ("Plummer has made an album every year for eighteen years", Munro 2016). Hopefully that's sufficient . GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe the Plumber

 * Weak oppose there is one statement that I think needs better citation work, but other than that, the article's in pretty good shape. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited the statement about the event in Mentor.
 * I can find sources that back up that he was a "divorced father of a 13-year-old boy" as of 2008. Is that good enough to support the statement you tagged under "Early life, education, and business career"? The only part of this sequence of events which I can date using the sources I found is the birth of his son, so maybe the claim would have to be weakened to avoid uncitable (but eminently plausible) extrapolation about the timeline.
 * Anyway, the statement I find much harder to find a source for is the one about working for Global Crossing. I can only find WP clones mentioning that he worked there. Maybe he said it in a TV interview or something, but I can't find anything on Google right now. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My vote was kind of late at night, but from my 15 minute Google search, that uncited info was hard to come by, unless you wanted to risk using sites like Breitbart which Wikipedia generally doesn't allow using. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;But on a personal note... wow. I remember commenting on his article's talk page during the 2008 election, and I even made a suggestion on the BLP noticeboard (both under my former username) relating to BLP concerns on his article. And here we are, fifteen whole years later, discussing an RD for him. (Fun fact: the "recent deaths" section of the main page didn't even exist back then, and wouldn't become a thing for several years.) Feels a bit surreal. Kurtis (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support Meets minimum requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Sundquist

 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed)Spanish women’s football team refuse to play, Spanish football federation head suspended by FIFA

 * Oppose for Now & Close there is literally no article. I will considering changing my support once there is a good-quality article created. There are no sources listed either. ❤History  Theorist❤  05:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Neutral, lean Oppose I still hesitate to support the blurb but @Monarch of Terror did significantly update and source it so I guess it's alright. FIFA is really getting in on this, so perhaps I'll throw in my weak support, but I'm not a good judge of notability when it comes to football news.  ❤History  Theorist❤  03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've swapped in a proper apostrophe. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, the stated fact isn't in the article. It says they'd "refuse to play", not that they'd quit or resigned.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Much more detail about the controversy is provided here: . 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb focused on the fallout from Spanish soccer federation head Luis Rubiales' kissing Spanish soccer player Jennifer Hermoso and targeted at ... but the blurb that's proposed right now is both inaccurate and not the whole story. I've updated the section header, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How about something like "Spain women's national football team refuse to play and all staff except coach Jorge Vilda resign due to alleged sexual harassment by president of Royal Spanish Football Federation Luis Rubiales." Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now wait until and if he quits. Otherwise a blurb would be premature. Gust Justice (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not to be rude, but this really feels like tabloid news. We posted the world cup, and minor dramas like this regarding one football team aren't really relevant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I created the disputes article, and at the time I didn't think it should be posted. It's been a bad week to have a busy week, and obviously there's now a lot more, but I now wonder if it's appropriate to post an ongoing situation as a blurb, or to post it to ongoing when the dimensions of what's ongoing seems to be often-changing. I disagree that it's tabloid news; while I would guess that if this had happened to the Spain men's team in 2010 it would be even bigger, Rubiales is quite a high-level executive in European football anyway. Besides that, the response is becoming the slightly-delayed MeToo movement of a stereotypically-macho nation where feminism has had a very rapid rise. But that begs the question: what is the story we would post. The eligible players refusing to play and the support staff resigning? FIFA suspending Rubiales? The growing social movement? I don't think the unconvincing nomination has helped in the decision-making (sorry IP), but I wouldn't know what to even put in the box that isn't "there's a lot going on in Spanish football and it's spreading to society". Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rubiales' attitude at the World Cup final has generated a wave of indignation in Spanish society, involving the entire political chessboard and generating regrettable headlines in the international press. The president of the Consejo Superior de Deportes recently declared that this was the first case of Me Too in Spanish sport, the Spanish government has initiated proceedings for Rubiales to be dismissed, complaints have been lodged with the sports court, a regional president has asked for his resignation and Rubiales has been suspended by FIFA. I would like to say, therefore, that it has been a particularly high-profile case in Spain, without any doubt. Rubiales is likely to fall soon and, just by looking at the reaction of several sports clubs and the leaders of the regional soccer federations, it seems that it could end there. In other words, the impact of this is not transcendental for Spanish sport, but just another embarrassing event that has lasted too long and has overshadowed the truly historic event. Therefore, I believe that ITN is not the space for this news, as it does not transcend, either, the purely local aspect of a shocking local news item. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * has been suspended by FIFA ... purely local – famously small local organisation, FIFA. Really, though, there's a difference between 'local news', i.e. social interest stories in a region that make headlines on slow news days, and major news that is still regional. You already acknowledged this is the latter, so a reminder of "Do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country". Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb proposed by MonarchOfTerror This is getting international coverage and not just from tabloids as alleged above. If it had been a minor incident, that would be one thing. But we're now a week out from the incident and coverage continues. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see where there is enough coverage or interest to blurb. We are not a tabloid or sports page. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You could've started with the source list in the nom. Kingsif (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb (also I think it should be added at the top with the original blurb?). This is a massive scandal making international news, and shouldn't be minimized here. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 23:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb written by MonarchOfTerror, which I've added a slightly modified version of to the nom as an altblurb. It's gotten enough press at this point that it's notable enough for ITN. The   Kip  00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait It feels like this is a situation that could end up with something more significant as a result, but the present actions are currently not really at a major level of affecting women's association football, since the World Cup is already over. It's gotten attention, but the full story doesn't feel told at this point. --M asem (t) 01:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On the suspection, I will remind people that WP presumes innocent until proven guilty, and so that AltII blurb is a definite Oppose for this purpose. It is standard practice that an agency will dismiss or suspend a person accused of sexual harassment until a full investigation can be performed - not just in sport but this happened with numerous celebs, so this is definitely not a topic appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 12:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A minor sports scandal that doesn't even rate its own article. This is not the sort of thing we post at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Nothing like significant enough for ITN. Nigej (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Added and support alt2. While the status of the team itself is a developing story and I'd !vote to wait on that, the sports business side is on firmer ground. Clearly notable, and anyone who is !opposing with "only of tabloid interest" comments, despite clear evidence otherwise, needs to re-examine their own sexist biases. That's not an accusation, that's asking - or saying the commenters should ask themselves - where such an illogical line of 'argument' came from. Kingsif (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though I support, can you please cool it with the immediate WP:ASPERSION casting? Just because one opposes this story doesn't mean that there is a decent chance they're a misogynist. — Knightof  theswords  15:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that, and you (should) know it. Everyone has sexist biases: Wikipedia has an issue with sexist bias, that's why we have WiR, that doesn't suggest it's misogynistic. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what does needing to re-examine their own sexist biases mean? Unless your saying their misandrists, or both? I fail to understand how supposed underlying sexist biases are to blame for people opposing? — Knightof  theswords  15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the full sentence. Sexist biases – I would have said gender biases but thought that could be taken the wrong way – refers to the perpetual issue of having to perceive the world through a patriarchal lens because of history. That's very different from hating a whole gender. In this instance, I was suggesting that users saying the item is only of interest to tabloids, when that is patently false based on the sources already listed before those !opposes were written, could indicate that those !voters simply expect news based around women's sports etc. to be of that low level of importance, and so they haven't bothered to appreciate that this is more significant. They maybe have !voted based on bias expectations due to having seen women's sports etc. get low-level coverage before, and haven't challenged their expectations by actually looking at this item's individual merits. I think I know where your reaction came from, but remember sexist =/= misogynist or misandrist. Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think that people would have been voting oppose if something of a similar calibir occurred in male sports; ITN has always had an enormous aversion to what can be considered as "celebrity news;" hell, its often used in the vaguest sense to oppose noms (for example, you had people comparing the Titan submersible incident to Anne Heche's death). — Knightof  theswords  01:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I encouraged you to read my full !vote again – I didn't say any !oppose came from bias, just the ones invoking clearly false reasoning. And perhaps more to the point, what I perhaps didn't expand enough on, is I see this very clearly as a sports story, not a sports scandal: between the business side of a powerful European executive being forced out and the sporting side of the new World Cup winners taking their (bat and) ball home, it's much more than "ongoing BTS drama in [sport]". Kingsif (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar scandals in mens' sports don't make it to ITN either, stop trolling.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've listed two similar scandals below. And there have been plenty of other sports scandals at ITN too such as the Biogenesis baseball scandal,  Calciopoli, Sepp Blatter and the 2015 FIFA corruption case. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Coming out of nowhere to insult someone? Classic troll. But seriously, if you're going to try write-off people with whom you disagree like that when they're clearly in good faith and good standing, what are you doing here. Kingsif (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The trigger incidents occurred at the World Cup and that's ITN/R so its significance is unquestionable. They have released a remarkably intense civil war as there's a long history of hostility to women's football in Spain where it was initially suppresssed.  There's legal action on both sides, the vitriol is flowing freely and multiple authorities are involved, including FIFA and the Spanish government.  This is big news with lots of heavyweight international coverage which is much more serious than the routine reporting of results.  The article update and altblurb seem adequate and so it's good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Ad Orientem. Yes, the players refuse to play for the national team because of the harassment but this if frankly not notable for ITN. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 (  話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 09:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - nowhere in ITN are events ineligible for posting if they lack an article; a relevant article can suffice. Per, In order to suggest a candidate, update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.. literally has  partially for this reason, so any closer should ignore any !votes stating or citing !votes that use the fact that this event doesn't have a dedicated article as an argument for opposing.  —  Knightof  theswords  12:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Editors have long cited criteria not spelled out in black and white. And, conceding odd exceptions, the community has more often than not rejected nominations on the basis of insufficient notability to justify a standalone article. While you are certainly free to disagree with it, that doesn't mean you can simply tell closers to ignore an argument. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with people calling out your shoddy vote, then you shouldn't have said it. You've been here long enough to know better.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indeed been here for a longtime. Long enough to know and recognize long established precedent. I have also been around long enough to recognize rude comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not precedent; multiple times have we promoted articles that don't fully focus on the noteworthy event, such as the malaria vax or the Finnish nuclear reactor. If you want to amend ITN's guidelines regarding this, then organize a consensus on WT:ITN; this willingness to abuse WP:IAR and casually ignore rules when it gets in the way of our !vote is arguably the primary reason why ITN is on the gallows on the moment, and also why we can barely attract any new users. Additionally, I wasn't being rude, I was just saying that !votes like your's (and, who was actually the user that initially prompted me to make a comment) are contradictory to ITN's guidelines. — Knightof  theswords  14:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Knightoftheswords281. As I said, you are certainly within your right to disagree with my vote and its rational. Telling closers to ignore it along with concurring votes is a different matter. I also noted that there have been exceptions where we have posted blurbs without a standalone article. But they are exceptions. ITNC is not an exercise in legalism and editors have long been free to apply what criteria they think is appropriate as long as it isn't flatly proscribed in the guidelines. The closers will determine the reasonableness of the arguments when assessing consensus. The reference to rudeness was not directed towards you. It was in response to GCG's rather snarky comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will concede that it was probably a little overboard to directly state that !votes should be ignored (though, that is somewhat common in !vote discussions), but just because ITN isn't some almalgamation of Qin China and the Stalinist USSR, doesn't mean that it has to be like Rojava or Somalia either. We are not legalist, nor are we anarchist; we ought to have guidelines that need to be followed. ITN's current passiveness and vagueness in its rules and enforcement of said rules is the major reason why ITN is in its current state, and we need to centralize the process into a comprehensible guide set that you typically cannot deviate from just because one feels like it. —  Knightof  theswords  15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one have found the process here to be mostly functional, though I have had moments where I felt a certain level of frustration. And FWIW I am no anarchist. One of my personal rules is that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. That said, I am not a supporter of turning ITN into a news ticker. There have been discussions about revamping the guidelines with a view to taking a more expansive approach to what gets posted. Those have almost always failed to gain broad support which I tend to view as an indication that the community is not keen on the idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment @Knightoftheswords281 I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I usually avoid voting on controversial things, especially if it has nothing to do with things I'm familiar with because I really have no clue if they are worthwhile for ITN. I'm not all too well versed in this side of ITN, so if I made any mistakes, please forgive me. I guess my !vote was kind of to nullify my !vote which was a bit premature, when there was no article whatsoever and no news sources attributed. I honestly have no opinion at this point and I don't want to see discussion closed at this point. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , no problem, we all take time to understand the new. I also apologize for being a bit harsh in my comment above. — Knightof  theswords  01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The merits of posting items that are updates has already been debated, but I would point out specifically that this situation would be notable enough for its own article, it just doesn't need one (yet?) IMHO. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Looks to be fairly fleeting news. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the news coverage is ramping up. For example, the NYT is running two prominent stories today while the BBC coverage is extensive and now has a timeline with 13 entries across 8 days.
 * A Forced Kiss, and a Reckoning With Sexism in Spain
 * After Prosecutors Open Inquiry Into Soccer Chief, He Is Asked to Resign
 * Luis Rubiales: Spanish Football Federation regional presidents call for resignation
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because people are talking about it now doesn't mean this will be an enduring story. And, yeah, it would be CRYSTAL to assume it will or will not be, but is this something people will really remember, say, a year from now. This story seems to be part of a larger problem in soccer and perhaps Spanish soccer, but this particular story doesn't feel like anything but a symptom of said disease. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sports scandals don't belong in ITN unless it results in truly global ramifications for their sport. Meanwhile, this is largely (almost entirely) still constrained to Spain and the Spanish football federation.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's easy to find prior examples of similar scandals being run at ITN:
 * USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal
 * United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal
 * Andrew🐉(talk)
 * I think there is a huge difference in scale between those events and this one. Both of those were multi-decade institutionalized incidences with many hundreds of victims, while this incident was just one creep. I'm not arguing against a blurb or downplaying this, but there is a fundamental difference between this and those. Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is definitely downplaying and again it's false. The nominated article details a pattern of abuse and oppression by multiple officials going back many years and affecting many players.  Note that we also have a List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies including "Sexual misconduct allegations" against other countries besides Spain.  There's clearly a lot of institutional issues here and so the scandal here seems even bigger than those others. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - overblown (c.f. ). This doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken, but rather that the action does not need fanfare, and it should not be posted to ITN as a result. Banedon (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More downplaying of yet another incident. What's noteworthy is that I'm not hearing any women in this discussion.  ITN seems even more male-dominated than usual on Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, and? As someone who is on the suport side, I must say that the attempt to imply that this is only receiving opposition solely because we're talking about women's soccer is bogus and bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS at the very least. Why is it mandatory that we have to have women (or realistically, known women; there's a chance that it's at the very least a bit bold for you to assume that everyone in this discussion is female)? It's just like the argument that men can't speak on abortion because it (somehow) doesn't affect them; it's a argument yelled from the bleechers when you can't play in the field. — Knightof  theswords  14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Andrew but it seems to me he was not asking to have less men, only more women. That with the item linked to gender so critically, men should not be the only voices. Really, KotS, you are (again!) either accidentally or deliberately misreading the simple observation that gender bias exists; either way, the tone of your response is unwarranted. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Never did I say that men should be the only voices, nor did I state the opposite. I still fail to see the distinction between sexism and misogyny and misandry; from our article on the first:
 * From our article on the former:
 * From our article on the latter:
 * Via stating that the opposition may be sexist, which using the definitions above, are objectively what you and Andrew are stating, you're saying that they are, in this case, misogynistic. Let's lay down the culture-war axe-grinders for once and go by Occam's Razor and state that the reason this is receiving massive amounts of opposition is that it's viewed as tabloid drama, which historically on ITN, whether regarding men or women, has been scorned here on ITN. — Knightof  theswords  17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that you said anything, just that your interpretation of what Andrew said was wrong. If you're not going to bother reading, it's really out of place for you to be so vociferously replying. As for your own aspersions, I (again, can't speak for Andrew) said sexist biases, i.e. gender bias on Wikipedia, which is not an accusation towards any user nor of their own alignment. If you're still stuck for the distinction: misogyny in women's sport could be someone in the crowd shouting abuse, sexism in women's sport could be historic underfunding. Besides sexist/gender bias being its own concept. Yes, there are people opposing because they see it as "tabloid drama" – the thing you're so outraged by was me simply saying those !voters could ask why they consider it tabloid drama when it's getting ongoing topline coverage in broadsheets around the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments like Andrew's is why I would never reveal my gender online. If I say I'm male then I get accused of bias, if I say I'm female then I am still accused of bias, by a separate group of editors. Same goes for whether I am e.g. Spanish or non-Spanish or follow/don't follow soccer, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Via stating that the opposition may be sexist, which using the definitions above, are objectively what you and Andrew are stating, you're saying that they are, in this case, misogynistic. Let's lay down the culture-war axe-grinders for once and go by Occam's Razor and state that the reason this is receiving massive amounts of opposition is that it's viewed as tabloid drama, which historically on ITN, whether regarding men or women, has been scorned here on ITN. — Knightof  theswords  17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that you said anything, just that your interpretation of what Andrew said was wrong. If you're not going to bother reading, it's really out of place for you to be so vociferously replying. As for your own aspersions, I (again, can't speak for Andrew) said sexist biases, i.e. gender bias on Wikipedia, which is not an accusation towards any user nor of their own alignment. If you're still stuck for the distinction: misogyny in women's sport could be someone in the crowd shouting abuse, sexism in women's sport could be historic underfunding. Besides sexist/gender bias being its own concept. Yes, there are people opposing because they see it as "tabloid drama" – the thing you're so outraged by was me simply saying those !voters could ask why they consider it tabloid drama when it's getting ongoing topline coverage in broadsheets around the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments like Andrew's is why I would never reveal my gender online. If I say I'm male then I get accused of bias, if I say I'm female then I am still accused of bias, by a separate group of editors. Same goes for whether I am e.g. Spanish or non-Spanish or follow/don't follow soccer, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Support Quite a national (and international) scandal that has sustained, safe to say apprehension that this was minor do not hold. Gotitbro (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps the article needs an update, and perhaps that's on me, but I still think there are gender biases causing people to assume this item is little more than a dramatic reaction to (alleged) sexual harassment – or perhaps those responses are dictated by social media now dedicating more coverage to Rubiales' mother being dramatic. I do not see the key of this story as being "scandal", though, and I encourage others to see it the same. In terms of business, a vice-president of UEFA has been suspended and Spain has no football officials. In terms of sports, the newly-crowned World Cup champion team just doesn't exist anymore and seems like it might not before they have to play in qualifiers. Spain has tried to uncover systemic abuse in women's football before; that an unwanted kiss had to pull back the curtain rather than a landmark investigative report doesn't make it ultimately more tabloid-y. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this is looking more like a Spanish #MeToo moment rather than a sporting scandal. It also happened on one of the world's largest stages. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - After reading all of the above discussion, I find myself thoroughly unconvinced that this is suitable for ITN on the basis of impact, consequences, or encyclopedic coverage. I align with those who feel like this may be a situation where WP:NOTATICKER is applicable, and I'm further revolted by accusations of sexism. Enough with the WP:ASPERSIONS. Maybe general sanctions truly are necessary for ITN. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is accusing users of sexism; it's revolting (or at least disruptive) that one user is continuing to mischaracterise simple requests for !voters to have awareness of inherent bias (and perhaps reconsideration with that in mind). Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "examine your sexist bias" is an implied accusation. Whether you intended it or not, that is how the wording comes across. I'm sympathetic to your overall message, but not your methodology. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't deny there could have been better execution, that's fair, but there was still no intentional implication of sexism, let alone misogyny. I think most users, like yourself, understood the point I was trying to make; I say this to say I do AGF of KotS, who has explained they don't know the difference between concepts. Suffice it to say, I would advocate for awareness of sexist/gender bias in every discussion at ITN, and remind everyone that it's not bad to admit such biases exist as long as we're aware of and trying to counter them. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close Consensus to post is not going to develop and the discussion has reached the point of generating more heat than light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Tradedia talk 05:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Continuing coverage There's a nice analysis of Why is it so hard to unseat Spain's football boss?. Amongst the structural details, it explains that "Of the 140 members, only six are women." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still making the news in the US, which mostly only covers soccer while their womens' team is winning - CNN ran this yesterday and this today, for example. Fits all four points of In the news, and does so better than 100% of the sports blurbs we do post. —Cryptic 14:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arleen Sorkin

 * Comment As a note, we do not know the exact date of her death, only that it is likely recent. Only now are sources talking about it. --M asem (t) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From the second article linked above: "Sorkin died Thursday, a source told The Hollywood Reporter." Is this not credible enough? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that THR story had come out by the time I posted my comment. If they are saying that, then that's the date we should use. There was a WP:BLPN thread about her death which due to having first been from Twitter posts was making the details unsure, and last I read that it was now a question of when she died. M asem (t) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the usual poorly cited filmography and awards and nomination section. Needs sourcing improvements. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting article and person. I have dealt with the only citation needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The filmography and awards and nomination sections still need sourcing. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: MC Marcinho

 * Oppose Discography and filmography need refs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well formatted and sourced. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently zero footnotes in the discography and filmography sections. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrii Pilshchykov

 * Support article looks good enough. I wish there was a bit more info on when he started service and when he was born, but that info is probably quite hard to come by. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this article says he was 29 as of May 2022, which would imply that he was born between May 1992 and May 1993. I've been unable to find a specific birth date, but maybe it's out there or will be soon enough. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article is good enough to post. This is currently the #1 story on the BBC website, FWIW. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is sufficient in depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Paragraphs like "As of 7 May 2022, Juice had 500 hours of combat flight time." and "In June 2023, Juice was quoted in a CNN article." makes me think that this is not a finely-tuned article, but perhaps good enough and hopefully more work is in progress. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. Too many colloquialisms used. I can fix this, but for now this article can not be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support i think it's a good article, mini-problems are corrected quickly -- 『 白猫<rt> しろ ねこ </rt> 』  Обг. 17:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment What more needs to be done for this to be posted? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is properly sourced and looks ready to go. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD: Bob Barker

 * Support I see two "needs update" statements but I don't think that is as major an issue if we were looking at unsourced statements. Thus the article appears ready to go. --M asem (t) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just adding Oppose blurb here. Well-known but that doesn't equate to significant or transformative or the like. M asem (t) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A well written article, Come on down to ITN.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added two CN tags in the "Awards and honors" section. These, along with the two "needs update" tags should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They are referenced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sad support. Article is now at least ITN level of quality. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and remember to have your pets spayed or neutered. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is probably a borderline case of someone getting a blurb or not. Bob was absolutely at the top of his field as far as television presenters goes in terms of his career and his longevity, but he’s a very US-Centric personality who probably would not be as well known intentionally Spman (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the inevitably proposed blurb. Not clearly influential enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm 68 years old and have never heard of him. Single country (ie USA) interest only. Nigej (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have to tap the sign again? There's a good reason to not blurb him (his death was not at all unexpected, given his age), but that it's relevant to only a single country isn't one of them. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Darkside. This continues to get out of hand. The   Kip  20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Just because someone is well-known does not mean they are sufficiently significant to warrant a blurb. I agree with The Kip and Darkside830, these blurb nominations for dead people (especially old people dying) are getting out of control. If Bob Barker deserves a blurb, does that mean Larry Emdur deserves a blurb when he dies? Chrisclear (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb, Post Support RD I checked Alex Trebek's nom back in 2020 to see if the blurb was even brought up for him, and while it did, it was pretty hard oppose. I don't think its likely Bob will be getting it either. It may be worth closing it here.
 * TheCorriynial (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb&mdash;But I'm not opposed to having a discussion about it. If someone is a high-profile public figure, or the case could be made for them being a highly transformative figure in their field, we shouldn't shut an editor down for even suggesting the idea. Discussion harms no one&mdash;I mean, how else are we supposed to establish consensus? Telepathy? Kurtis (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Being well-known by itself is not sufficient to merit a blurb. I wonder if we need to revisit the blurb criteria and be more specific as to what "transformative" means. Certainly I have no problem with the discussion either. After all, only through a discussion can a consensus be reached. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The claims made by Knightoftheswords281 that editors are "start[ing] shit", that "No one was calling for a blurb" and that "Literally no one has called for any blurb" are misguided at best. It is quite clear that with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1172393479#(Posted_RD)_RD/Blurb:_Bob_Barker the "blurb" header was added. Furthermore, prior to the addition of that header, one editor had written in support the ITN entry - it is just unclear whether that editor was in support of a RD entry or a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * KOTS281, you're riding a fine line between bluntness and patent incivility. The discussion was quite civil until you closed and then took the extra step of editorializing in your close hinting that people are "starting shit." mentioned that this was a borderline case of a blurb, and even with reasonable doubt, that in itself would be sufficient to prompt the discussion. You mentioned before that you (and I) were part of the problem regarding the toxic atmosphere on ITN/C; why not now try to be part of the solution? Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that this close was rather hostile to the calm, civil discussion that was ongoing about a potential (albeit highly unlikely) blurb, a discussion at least worth having per Spman. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 13:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Spman suggested there may have been a case for a blurb, I said if it was proposed I would oppose, and someone then put blurb in the header. Seems harmless enough to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Same as DarkSide, I took it that Spman posited the idea of a blurb and I voted in opposition as such. If anyone's "starting sh*t" or "instigating unnecessary drama," it's KOTS' unnecessarily inflammatory closure message and hat. The   Kip  00:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ismet Ahmad

 * Support I think it's good enough to post. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, I wasn't able to find a citation to support the Rockefeller Foundation/Ohio State University connections, only the University of Florida. The rest of the article is supported by the sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think I mixed some things up, I shouldn't have written down the Ohio State University one. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The second paragraph in the "Education and academic career" section is entirely uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for RD now. AGFing Indonesian sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(closed) Donald Trump arrested in Georgia, mugshot taken

 * Oppose The BBC article says It was his fourth arrest in five months in a criminal case, but this was his first police booking photo., so I suppose the main story worth considering here is his mugshot. Unfortunately, it's a trivial funny thing that doesn't make any significant changes in the process.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That adds to media circus. Normally a person is placed in custody or detention after the first arrest, but here we had four arrests and still basically nothing until conviction. Almost like WWE pantomime. Brandmeistertalk  11:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We really should only post convictions. Banedon (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I still don't know what is not understood. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the nomination originally had a non-free image (File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg), which I have now removed as a violation of WP:NFCC. (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bernie Marsden

 * Oppose for now top level CN banner is present. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a large amount of uncited information. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is very unbalanced in terms of importance; it spends less than a paragraph on his time in Whitesnake, arguably the most well-covered part of his career outside of Wikipedia, it doesn't even discuss the well-publicized shake-up in the band that led to Marsden being fired, years of strained relations with Coverdale, reconciliations and reunions, etc. Instead of being an integral part of his notability, it comes off as a minor part of his career.  It spends almost as much text on Paice Ashton Lord, a band he was only in briefly as a hired gun for one album and a few shows, as it does on Whitesnake, a band he was a founding member of, and for which he served as a principle songwriter for a long time.  Really below quality standard I would expect for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bray Wyatt

 * Support Another wrestler gone before his time alas. But top of his field. Article well written and sourced throughout so seems ready for RD to me.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There's a couple spots that need a bit more sourcing, such as in the section on the developmental territories, but otherwise this is a well-sourced page (over 300 citations!) and looks ready for RD. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support meets criteria This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

BRICS Expansion

 * Support significant expansion of a major global bloc. HenricArryn (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Extending an invitation != accepting an invitation. Will support when the bloc widens Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These countries actually asked to join. Their joining date is set for 1. Jan 2024 - when no news media will be reporting on it. The news about the expansion of the bloc is happening now. Khuft (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, major geopolitical expansion and the relevant countries are already set to join. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article could do with some work, but clearly an important development. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - though I like to shit on BRICS all the time, this is notable and is personally one of the few instances where they have actually done stuff. For the people who oppose on the basis of "it hasn't occurred yet," everytime we invoke that "rule," it never gets posted when the event actually goes down. The newsworthy event is when the change is made, not when the formalization occurs. —  Knightof  theswords  18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per all above. The Kip (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose should be nominated and posted when it actually happens. 2A02:908:671:4F20:65AB:B238:15B1:9774 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is premature and should be posted in January 2024 in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Until it happens PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At which point there'll be no reporting on it, and it won't be posted.
 * It's now or never, effectively. The Kip (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Blurb is misleading, the invitations have appeared to been accepted, ands now just process that will delay their actual participation. --M asem (t) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This is not major news unless some or all of these countries are actually admitted. Assumption that it will happen or what coverage will be like when admissions happen are CRYSTAL. Just because it is covered now does not mean this is the right time to run this story. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until this actually happens Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Now & Oppose. These countries were just invited and aren't members yet. This should probably be nominated again when they officially become members. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Its more newsworthy now as the change has been made and reported on, rather than the formalization of it. Happily888 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Argentina formally joins the BRICS countries" is something I would support blurbing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the emphasis on expansion. The organisation is already quite ineffectual and adding countries like Ethiopia isn't going to help.  Its acronym is also going to collapse into chaos as there will be too many vowels.  The best I can find is ICE_ABUSERS but there's still an extra I left over.
 * There are other aspects of the summit which are attracting coverage such as the strange voice of Putin and the failure of Xi to make a planned speech. Perhaps a more general blurb about the summit might work.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No offense but "Oppose because the acronym won't work anymore" is probably the funniest argument I've seen in a while. (And whenever they find a new acronym, that one should definitely go to ITN!) Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The acronym is the organisation's brand and raison d'être and so is fundamental. See The BRICs and the power of the acronym and BRICS Shows It’s Little More Than a Meaningless Acronym.  There's over a hundred different international economic organizations and so you need a strong brand to stand out and seem important. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Warsaw Pact was somewhat inaptly named given the fact that the seat of power was concentrated in the USSR and not in Poland, but in any case: You do recognize of course that those sources, reliable as they are for purposes of secondary reporting, would naturally have a Western-centric political and ideological bias towards blocs such as BRICS. The United States is no stranger to such viewpoints; you need only look back a few decades when the hammer and sickle still flew outside the Kremlin. So even if the expansion appears "ineffectual", it's still newsworthy, otherwise there wouldn't be a counter-narrative. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support per HenricArryn. It's arguable that we should post when it happens, but there's a good chance it will not get as much coverage when it happens compared to now, in which case it makes sense to post now, especially since there are no major obstacles I'm aware of to them actually joining. This compares to, say, Sweden joining NATO. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is in decent shape, but the updated text that the blurb references should be expanded a bit. Still, probably good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN-worthy notability, opposers unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wait until the formal expansion of the BRICS. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A pretty significant shifting of the world order, with many of the countries listed (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE) having strong economic footholds in the Middle East. Encyclopedic in nature as it will no doubt result in major alterations to existing important Wikipedia articles. As to whether to post it now or at the formal introduction of these countries, my preference would be to post it now, but I'm not opposed to waiting . Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Amending my vote, per 's rationale below. It would not be worthwhile at this point to wait. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - Until those countries formally join, there is no point in posting an invitation that has not even been accepted by any of said countries.TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of "invitation" here. It's diplomatic language to say that the 5 current BRICS countries accept the new ones (who had expressed interest already) to join. Ramaphosa's speech says the following: "We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS. The membership will take effect from 1 January 2024." It doesn't mention any acceptance or ratification process, nor does it leave any doubt that the 6 new countries will become members on 1 Jan 2024. Needless to say, no news media will be reporting on this on New Year 2024. We either post this now, or we will never post it. Khuft (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What the Saudi foreign minister has said already is that they'll think about it and so it's not a done deal. The Saudis are naturally more cautious than the others as they are the rich ones with the money while the other entrants would be more supplicant. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – Important news, and, in the same way we posy elections of heads of state rather than their inagurations, I think it's best not to wait and to post this now. DecafPotato (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not significant like UN or EU quite yet. Also it's only an invitation, and also BRICS hasn't flexed its muscles on anything yet. This isn't news yet QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How can it... not be news when it's... in the news? Real question. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Huge amounts of coverage here in Indonesia. The usual opposes are bordering on SOAPbox. 103.238.200.178 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It seems okay to post the news now. The January 1 date is a formality, and I'm not sure that when the new year starts the community will still care about posting this update. A lot of agreements are worded such that they come into effect on January 1, but I guess it makes more sense to post them when they are agreed upon. I don't blame people who disagree though. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mark my words, on January 1st, 2024, I will post this nomination again. And if someone else has posted it before me, I will give it a whole hearted support.
 * See you all in 126 days, 10 hours, 12 minutes, and 22 seconds. I'm a man of my word. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great, hope there's plenty of depth in news coverage at that time. 😊 Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the best examples of the type of major geopolitical news that has serious ramifications, but is so big picture that it can be hard for people who, to put it bluntly, are not well-versed in international politics to grasp the tangible impact of, and therefore too often receives opposition at ITN/C for being "insignificant" or "incremental." Article update isn't massive, but I don't think it needs to be or should be. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not done yet, and it is not clear what the practical implications of this will be, beyond cheap talk and the usual anti-West leftist propaganda. It is a group of very different countries that will have a hard time agreeing on anything or achieving anything. Tradedia talk 03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support I find BRICS laughable as an organization, and agree that it will get very little (potentially nothing) done, but it still is, practically, the expansion of a major geopolitical block; about the most blatantly notable event imaginable. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major news making global headlines. Would be the same is another nation joined NATO/G7/EU, etc. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are military alliances, BRICS is an economical alliance. History6042 (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one of those is a military alliance. BRICS is very explicitly being described as a . Curbon7 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. History6042 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between NATO/G7/EU and BRICS. NATO has conducted wars. EU has created a top 2 currency and economic system. G7 has done a lot of important things. On the other hand, BRICS has not achieved much since its creation. Tradedia talk 01:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event which is still IN THE NEWS now. Wiki does not report what people WANT (i.e. collapse of the BRICS per the above), but rather what happens. 2607:9880:2D28:108:E5C1:DAB4:C5E2:2C2 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but with the altblurb I just added, which is I think explains the situation much better. The "invite" language is what I think a lot of the opposes are arguing against, but it is the fact this is a done deal, and simply like the election of most state leaders, the formal start of their term aligns with the BRACS calendar. --M asem (t) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That still feels like WP:CRYSTAL though, it should be "BRICS plans to admit...beginning in 2024." - Indefensible (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ebrahim Golestan

 * Oppose Mostly well-cited in the body (only one CN tag), but the Books and Filmography sections are mostly to entirely unsourced. The Kip (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited the Filmography section. History6042 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some work to source the books section and also replaced letterboxd and IMDb sources in the filmography (since IMDb is unreliable per WP:IMDB and Letterboxd gets its data from TMDB which is user-generated and unreliable per WP:UGC). There’s still the one cn tag in the body and one uncited book, I could not find sources for these. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(closed) Proposed wholesale removal

 * Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close This type of nom has been nominated before, we don't need to open another one. Quick summary of what I said last time in a nom like this; the war is still ongoing, just because that specific article isn't receiving any major updates doesn't mean nothing is happening on the battlefield. Supplies are still being sent to the frontlines from Western countries, the killing of Prigozhin will definitely escalate tensions between the Russian military and Wagner itself, and bloody battles like in Bakhmut are still being fought. Absolutely no reason to remove it. TwistedAxe   [contact]  13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then why didn't you add all of that information to the article? If it is so important to you that this remain on the main page, why couldn't you put in 5 minutes of effort each day or so to update the article with all of this information?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way. And even if formally it does not have the required regular updating, I would certainly apply the IAR rule. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Time for the monthly Ukraine war ongoing removal
 * This is a good faith nom though, and you raise good points. But my personal opinion is that this item is far too important and is making so many headlines every day that it would be ridiculous to take it off, even if the article is not being updated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Common sense says that fir a topic that has been going in for this long and this well covered, the updates are going to be on subpage of the main topic and not the main topic itself. We had this issue before with I think the Hong Kong protests, and I am pretty sure that acknowledge that subpage being updated was appropriate. M asem (t) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still definitely ongoing. And will be ongoing for a long time. A big crucial battlefield update could happen tomorrow, right now the main article might be a bit slow on updates though. I also remind everyone that this article have several articles about individual battles and event which might get updates through the main articles appearance on Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, obviously, but perhaps the link can be (piped) changed to point to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present), which gets updates all the time? Of course, then people don't get the main overview and central article, but they do get the latest enwiki updates. Fram (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - COVID is still ongoing as well, but when that stopped being regularly updated, with substantial updates, it was likewise dropped. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that Russia-Ukraine is still receiving regular updates. Yesterday's plane crash, for example. The situation continues to develop on the regular. Kurtis (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose&mdash;Per my reply to Nableezy directly above. Kurtis (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Conflict regularly makes headlines, and while the main article may not get updated every day, the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive is getting many updates daily (but we should not solely post the counteroffensive article, as this does not capture the full picture of what is ongoing). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and please link to the timeline article so that we can't get a regular removal nom for this topic based on a technicality. Good faith nom, but per above, it's still somewhat foolish to remove this, though as I've repeatedly stated, at this point, linking to the TL article is much better, as the home article barely gives any info on recent developments and the former is being updated daily. — Knightof  theswords  14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion

 * I object to this closure, and the comments in opposition are based on a false premise. the plane crash does not appear once in Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is the last significant update to the article, and that isnt really all that substantial an update. And it was on August 6. People are claiming something that is not true, that the article is being updated regularly, and then the discussion is closed on the basis of those false claims. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps the meaning of my comment was unclear&mdash;the linked article might not be getting regular updates anymore, but the topic itself is still very much ongoing. It continues to receive widespread attention, and the situation is developing by the day. I like Fram's suggestion that we pipe the link to the recent timeline rather than the main article, but I am very much against removal at this juncture.
 * I agree that this discussion was closed prematurely, and should be allowed to run for a longer period of time. Kurtis (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In two hours it’d amassed nine oppose votes, all on solid rationale grounds, to just one single support outside of the nom. That’s the very definition of how WP:SNOW works. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if the Sudan conflict can't get a consensus for removal, this sure as hell won't. Wasting the communities time/energy on this is absurd. Until there is a peace accord I don't see consensus ever forming and we should very well consider trouting the next person who brings it up. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a completely absurd comparison. The last time someone proposed removing the article Sudan conflict, the article was receiving substantive updates every 2-3 days.  This one hasn't received an update in weeks.  If we are telling our readers we have up-to-date information on a story, why are we sending them to read an article that doesn't?  If you think the story deserves to be covered by an ongoing link, either edit the article in question regularly to add the new information or give us the link to an article where that is happening.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be in support of discussing whether to pipe or not (and in weak support of piping). However, I agree that discussing removal is pointless. Nobody in the discussion challenged the notability of the topic, only the quality of the linked article. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fine with not removing the item, but there were several proposals to change the link. Can we discuss perhaps doing that?  If the story is in the news, but some other Wikipedia article is receiving all of the updates rather than this one is, perhaps we can link to that one instead?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that. The currently linked article is the main one that covers the war, and from which readers can navigate further to get more in-depth details. It's probably more useful to the casual Wikipedia user than a war journal. Also, didn't we treat covid in the same way? (Honest question: I don't really remember). Khuft (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As opposed to a vague overview article that essentially goes over all the things everyone knows about and doesn't even highlight any of the events that are in the news? — Knightof  theswords  17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have supported removal. Jayron is making points which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed - if this is an ongoing event, why is the main article not receiving substantive updates? The discussion needs to be reopened. Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly. The guidelines on WP:ITN state outright: 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. (bolded mine). ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly.
 * With all due respect; the proposal had garnered nine opposes, with solid rationale (as opposed to simply "lol no" or similar), to just a single support. If it was something like three opposes it'd be premature, but not SNOWing it then and there would've just extended the inevitable, and the lone support voter force-reopening this discussion feels like sour grapes to a degree. The Kip (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect; the proposal had garnered nine opposes, with solid rationale (as opposed to simply "lol no" or similar), to just a single support. If it was something like three opposes it'd be premature, but not SNOWing it then and there would've just extended the inevitable, and the lone support voter force-reopening this discussion feels like sour grapes to a degree. The Kip (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The war is ongoing. It’s time to stop these nominations that are snow closed anyway. And yes there was a clear and loud consensus to not remove this article from ongoing. If anyone want to discuss if another article about this war is better for the section, then have that discussion at the appropriate talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, this is the appropriate page for that. And whether or not the war is ongoing is immaterial to the question of is the article we are linking receiving updates. It is not, and as such it is ineligible for inclusion in ongoing. And i dgaf if a thousand people say oppose, that is not consensus, we base "consensus" on adherence to our policies and guidelines, and this is one of the few instances here where we actually have some guidance. 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. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. All the opposes here are invalid and should be ignored. And this should be reopened. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Luckily ITN and Ongoing are based on consensus. Secondly, take a look at the suggestion below which seems ok.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, notably the suggestion is taking place here and not an article talk page. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Removal at this point is clearly premature. This is where a strict following of policy to remove the entry would actually be unencyclopedic and of no productive benefit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Jayron32 and Nableezy make good points, but there is even more to be said. We removed the COVID-19 pandemic at times when there were containment measures in place in half of the world, tens of thousands of deaths were reported on a daily basis, there was wide media coverage and hundreds of Wikipedia articles were regularly updated, but the main argument was that the world got used to the pandemic and began to gradually normalise. The same is happening with this story now. While it’s undeniably still ongoing, the world got used to it and, more importantly, Ukrainians went back to normal life. The incremental updates in the past few weeks consist of run-of-the-mill drone attacks, planned future operations, pleads for weapon and some statements about alleged losses. That’s definitely not newsworthy. I’d rather remove it from ongoing and post when something major happens in the same way we do with the Gaza–Israel conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukrainians went back to normal life
 * The near-every day rocket strikes on civilians is "normal life?" The Kip (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strikes affect the quality of life, but people already got used to it. People go to work as they did before the invasion, and refugees began returning to the country (please read this news article). Shootings affect the quality of life of Americans, but it doesn’t mean they don’t live a normal life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * America is not bombed with missiles every day. Just to make it clear.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your "every day" is a strong argument that this should be removed. While it's certainly tragic and I personally acknowledge it as someone who helped Ukrainians who left the country to find shelter, those strikes have definitely become routine, and editors here should divorce from their emotions. The case was same with the pandemic. It was urgent when several hundreds of people tested positive and several dozens died daily, but then it became routine when tens of thousands of people tested positive and thousands died daily, so it was removed from ongoing at times when the situation was more severe compared to when it was posted. We all know it's ongoing, but it can't stay posted forever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article will be kept in the Ongoing section as it seems now, with the addition of the fork article about every day updates. So a good compromie for now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Proposal: link timeline to ongoing section

 * Support alt - IMO, it makes sense to link to both the overarching article as well as the well-updated timeline. The Kip (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Yes, did we not have something similar during the pandemic. That the main article also included other fork articles in italics or whatever they were formatted as. Maybe that is a solution. I would support that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt gives both the bigger picture of the conflict and the latest developments.Khuft (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt per above. It's better than what we currently have. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt A great solution to the problem. Thank you for proposing it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt This works a lot better than just having the main article as the ongoing article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Alternative proposal - Is there any way we could make some 'Portal' page that links all of these articles together and have that be the main article? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The timeline article is most definitely a better target, but there have been really no major developments in the past few weeks. Ongoing was practically introduced to prevent posting multiple blurbs pertaining to a single ongoing story. I don’t see that happening.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a reasonable solution to the concerns in the closed delist thread This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate proposal is updated daily, and (unlike the 2023 counteroffensive page) in principle covers all aspects of the war. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as a reasonable alternative fulfilling the conditions of daily updates. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Better. The timeline seems more reasonable as it is updated daily. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 02:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt The link to Russian invasion of Ukraine should be kept, as it is the main article. Davey2116 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment When one says "per guidelines" and then says we "must" do something, that's a fallacy in using P&G. Guidelines (which ITN's are) guide us but are not prescriptive, but descriptive. Yes, we typically require the linked article to be the one updated while it sits at Ongoing, but there is no one holding us to that, and in a case like the Ukraine-Russia war, the topic is so huge that it is reasonable to expect subpages to be updated more often than the main page. The ITN guideline would be interpreted to allow that. As such I'm not saying we can't link to the timeline, but it should be a second useful link, presented as "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)". --M asem  (t) 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I see no reasonable argument to maintain link to the main article, only an adherence to convention.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - since consensus is nearly universally in favor of the above proposal, I'm pinging . — Knightof  theswords  14:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Add parenthesis with the text “timeline” within the parenthesis. Ktin (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Chess World Cup 2023

 * Comment - What is the difference between the World Chess Championship and the Chess World Cup? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The World Cup is a qualifying trampoline for the Candidates Tournament, itself a qualifying stage for the World Championship. Brandmeistertalk  12:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then Oppose PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They're just different tournaments. World Cup is one of FIDE's (the organizing body of chess) marquee events, with major funding (see the prize pool) and global representation (there are qualifying tournaments all over the world). It's similar to the FIFA world cup in that sense. World Chess Championship is a different event that awards the World Chess Champion title, it has its own qualification paths (World Cup is one way to qualify).
 * To me it's simply a question of whether we want to post more than one chess event in ITN. If yes then this is the obvious one to post. If no then just keep the WCC (which is in ITNR anyway). Banedon (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Giant table farm, almost no prose about the event at all. There isn't even a full sentence describing the final match or who won.  Article needs a LOT of work to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event in the chess world. Numancia (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Huge amount of work required to get it up to the required standard. Nigej (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would be like posting group stage results of the Champions League. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a qualifying event for the Candidates, which itself is the qualifying tournament for the world championship. Grandiose name aside, it's just another tour event that happens to be directly organised by FIDE. The equivalent of the 'world cups' held in other sports is the Chess Olympiad, not this. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on importance and quality. This is, at most, the fourth-most-important chess event in the biannual cycle (behind the Championship, Candidates, and Olympiad).  Also, the article is mostly a giant table of results. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Comparatively less important event. The Kip (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Men play board games" is hardly a major world event.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Point of order @ —! The FIDE top 15 currently comprises players from Norway, USA, China, Russia, France, Netherlands, India, Romania, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam. That's a greater global representation than a helluva lot of sports that claim the same moniker. Which hardly applies to Cluedo (World champion one Josef Kollar... probably rightly red-linked). Just an FYI.  SN54129  17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Is kicking a ball at a goal while someone tries to stop it a major world event. History6042 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I oppose this proposal, downplaying the importance of an event by snarkily describing it isn't really an argument. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per most of the above. It's not really a major tournament that is notable. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Not notable. --MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Mizoram bridge collapse

 * Oppose Article is a stub quality wise and I don't see how this will have any lasting impact of encyclopedic value. It's tragic but not notable enough. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Smith

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and decently holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This one's good to go for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Bounkoulou

 * Support Article is well cited. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright, AGFing French sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Feldman

 * Support A bit short but it's good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Terry Funk

 * Oppose Whole sections/paragraphs unreferenced. A lot of work required to get the article to the required standard. Nigej (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's some serious referencing needed before this article is ready.  Schwede 66  08:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Tver plane crash, RD: Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin

 * Oppose for now News has only just come in and the article doesn't mention death as of yet XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the story has been updated. "All 10 people on the plane, including three crew members, died in the crash." Schierbecker (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Cautious support - Assuming he or Russia didn't fake his death. Schierbecker (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose blurb until breadth and depth of coverage can be assessed. — <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  17:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until further confirmation per WP:BLP. RIA Novosti says according to Rosaviatsiya he was on the passengers list rather than among the dead. Brandmeistertalk  17:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I know, everyone on the plane died, so it's very unlikely he actually survived by not boarding that plane <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 17:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb now. Wagner's own Telegram channel Grey Zone has confirmed their deaths. Brandmeistertalk  06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb. The article quality seems good enough for RD, no major issues tagged. My reasoning for a blurb is that Prigozhin is a figure who has been in world news a lot over the past years and especially last few months, and so his death itself is quite a newsworthy event, whether it was just an accident or due to intentional human machinations. The Wagner group has been involved in the Ukraine invasion, various other conflicts around the world (e.g., Sudan) and an attempted internal coup in Russia, just this year. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do think it is reasonable to wait a bit until it is clearer that Prigozhin and Utkin died (or somehow are still alive). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article in development is: 2023 Tver plane crash. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD and blurb as per nom MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation, but this a blurb if all true, should be about the plane crash that included Prigozhin. --M asem (t) 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Sudden death, article looks good, attempted a coup not that long ago and major figure in an ongoing conflict. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait per my comments here. There is confirmation that the plane crashed, and that he was on the passenger list, but there is not confirmation that he was on the plane. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * N.B. this oppose is because of the lack of confirmation; if he is explicitly confirmed dead then treat me as a support. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits, but I agree with Giraffer that it's still unclear as to if he died. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait than Support blurb If it is confirmed, than it should be a blurb given recent events and the nature of the death, but we can afford to wait a bit for that, since things are still unclear now. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the death is confirmed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * x 7 Support blurb On firm confirmation. Guess all the food tasters weren't enough after all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But what of the body doubles? Need to wait a while on this. Nfitz (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have proposed a blurb making his death more ambiguous, simply referring to the crash.  There are also some unconfirmed reports that the plane was shot down. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nitpicky, but your blurb (Alt II) implies that he was on the plane, which seems to be the unconfirmed bit. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not nitpicky. :) Perhaps "alleged to carry"? Maybe just wait. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb BBC and most other major western media conglomerates that i have checked have confirmed his death. Daikido (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is confirmation he was on the passenger list, but not necessarily on the plane yet. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When did they confirm it, User:Daikido? I just turned off the TV, and both CNN and BBC were only reporting he was on the passenger list, with pundits clearly saying that they need confirmation of his death. Nfitz (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Unconfirmed: Prigozhin is dead *Visegrad TASS 50.101.173.184 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yea the twitter account of the visegrad group is definately a reliable source here. lmao. Daikido (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * https://news.sky.com/story/ten-killed-in-private-jet-crash-north-of-moscow-wagner-leader-yevgeny-prigozhin-on-passenger-list-12946006 2A02:C7C:9491:9000:31A1:489C:D75D:5474 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66599733 — <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  17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - CNN and BBC are both reporting that he was on the passenger list, but no confirmation he was on the plane. And what's the bigger story - if it's just an unfortunate crash, then it's not otherwise ITN. But if Russia has now started shooting down planes departing from Moscow - than that may be the bigger story. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We might not get unambiguous official confirmation that it was an intentional act of shooting down a plane. People will undoubtedly still speculate about it anyway. Russia tends to pass deaths off as accidents even when they clearly aren’t. (IMO it’s newsworthy enough to be blurbed even if it was in fact just an accident, but I can see why some may disagree. Prigozhin is a name that would evoke strong emotional reactions from residents of many Eastern European countries, to say nothing of his relevance to other regions. His relevance to world affairs is greater than that of many other individuals whose deaths were blurbed.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. The big issue, 98.170.164.88 was whether they were actually on the plane - with the long history of body doubles, deceptive movements, and the false claims by the state-controlled media, then we should be cautious. But with the Wagner group itself reporting the deaths, this seems sure enough, that it's time to post. The key question is how Russia destroyed the plane; but we might not get the details on that for decades - unless foreign powers have evidence; I'd think missiles that close to the NATO border will be well monitored. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb about the plane crash, which should name both Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin imo. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Far more likely that he died on the plane than anything else based on news sources ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait and then weak support RD and blurb - Confusing vote, I know. I think we should wait until there is more details on this story, as this is such a rapidly developing situation with confusing and conflicting info. But as it stands, I do think the situation is notable. First of, plane crashes like this, regardless of global impact, are often posted on ITN. Second, one of the biggest players in this conflict, head of a major component of Russia's fighting force, and also deeply involved in other global conflicts like the Niger crisis being killed is pretty big.
 * While you could argue that this is covered by ongoing, I do think a development as big as this that also has significant effect elsewhere shouldn't be grouped as just another phase of the war. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb one it is confirmed he actual was on the plane. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Prigozhin is a notable figure of the Russo-Ukrainian war and his sudden death is a major event. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Russian authorities claim only 8 bodies have been found (source) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The personal Wiki page and/or the crash page. 2023 Tver plane crash Detsom (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a consensus for a blurb. I suggest we wait at least 12 hours or until his death is confirmed before posting. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, but wait - There seems to be a consensus that he died, but further confirmation should be released before it's added. 2A02:C7E:321D:3600:9453:3159:B523:8E22 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: For a blurb with a bold link to 2023 Tver plane crash, this 135-word stub needs to be expanded. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb IV - he's been universally been presumed dead, with even our own article stating that he's deceased; it's not ITN's job to editorialize and state "WeLl AkShulLy" an be contrary to all the WP:RSes. — Knightof  theswords  18:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also added Dmitry Utkin, a notable individual who had an article beofre the incident that died in the crash. — Knightof  theswords  18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Situation is changing too quickly. At least wait for an official confirmation of death. After that, and maybe a confirmation of a shootdown, then Support.  Bremps  ...  18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. Still no official confirmation he was actually on the plane. The Kip (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of the support !votes engage in a non sequitur argument, namely, they assume that since Prigozhin is on the passenger list, he must have boarded the plane. There is, however, no obligation to board even if you booked the flight, and we have no firm confirmation that Prigozhin was on the plane. None of the blurbs take this into account.
 * According to WP:BLP, biographies must be written conservatively and responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. What the majority votes on so far is a definite overstatement that is not supported by any of the RSs. It is only suggested that he was a passenger, we are not sure, like, 100%, and we should be to claim he is dead.
 * Wait for confirmation. If Prigozhin is alive at the end of the day, I lean oppose about adding the plane crash alone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I notified WP:BLPN so that it could monitor the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So apparently newspapers started wrting obituaries about Prigozhin and otherwise confirming his death: Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph. So I switch to neutral as the news outlets are not unanimous Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for official confirmation that he was on the plane, or that he died. Situation is still unclear and we don't lose much by waiting a couple of hours instead of jumping the gun. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose In context this is a small blip on the radar of the war and even smaller in international relations. This is not much different from a plane crash on which a somewhat famous person happend to be. Not at all a significant world event by any stretch. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this a small blip that isn’t significant? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is beyond significant, and this will definitely have a big impact on the war in Ukraine. Wagner supplied Russia with much needed firepower and manpower. Not to mention, Putin now definitely has a stronger hand over his military command. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wait for independent confirmation, then AltBlurb3 (if circs. haven't changed). Moscow Mule (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait untill we know what is going on. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 20:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - I will support RD for Prigozhin. Blurb for him and plane crash should wait.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle several media are now edging towards stating he died, on the basis that Wagner group Telegram channel and Russian aviation authority claim it. See e.g. The Guardian. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - significant event affecting the future of Wagner group and the world conflicts they were involved in. - Vis M (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - kind of surprised it hasn't been already. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support blurb However, the plane crash article & Utkin’s article need more details if those articles are bolded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support & comment Wagner has since confirmed the death of both individuals in their official Telegram channel. I've edited both articles to reflect this change, however there might be some reverts. I fully support posting this, HUGE news and its all over every global news outlet. Will have big influence both in and outside of Russia, and especially in the war. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've seen unconfirmed tweets that Wagner group had wartime plans in effect and are beginning to engage them should Prigozhin be killed. This may require a rescope of the current article if there is a new offensive front again Putin that was triggered by the crash, but for now keep the blurb focused on the estashlibrd fact that the plane he was in crashed with aboard killed. --M asem (t) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support There are still unconfirmed reports with both Wagner Telegram Channels and mainstream media regarding their deaths, but considering that we've already updated both of their statuses to "deceased", we should put it in the news for now.
 * I'm on board if we want to include a comment about these reports not being 100% confirmed, but considering how much this would affect in and outside of Russia if true, it should be in the news. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on Notability, but Wait the articles don't really cover their deaths much, and I'm not 100% certain what exactly has happened to them. If nothing develops (i.e. they are not actually dead or something crazy like that) and the articles are brought up to snuff, I'd definitely want it on ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;Highly notable development. Once the articles are ready, this should most definitely be added to the main page. Kurtis (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support but Wait for now. Considering Prigozhin was a notable figure during the invasion (especially the munity) his death sounds very notable but for now, wait until his death is confirmed and other details are released. I've read many news sources but so far, none has confirmed his death and only presumed that he died. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Highly notable, one would have no idea how long I have been waiting for this, and I'm not trying to bring personal opinion into this or anything, but this should be immediately posted as a blurb due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until independently verified. If verified (and a new blurb isn't warranted), I vote for alt blurb 3. DJMcNiff (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until verified one way or the other. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if we front-page declared the death of a person who turns out to be still alive. If Prigozhin is still alive and was not on the plane, then chances are that this was a failed FSB attempt to assassinate him - but that likely wouldn't become WP-verified info for months or years. Boud (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once confirmed - Russia's open-windows policy strikes again This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - support if confirmed, wait till then (although it seems probable). Banedon (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait: the Associated Press and Reuters are both still using phrases like "presumed" or "on the passenger list". --Carnildo (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The BBC still just describes Prigozhin as "presumed dead" --Tristario (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to the waits above, as I think consensus is close to postable. Would tracking with the sources and saying "are presumed dead" in the blurb address your concerns? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumption of death is not listing impact. If Prigozhin isn't dead, this story doesn't mean a whole lot. We lose nothing here by being patient and waiting. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. BBC and Sveriges Television now report (example) that Russia has confirmed that Prigozhin has died. /Julle (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. it is unlikely that he could have survived the crash (At least without us knowing by know). Abdullah raji (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder what editors are supporting or opposing. Because there are a blurb and a RD nom at the same time. Is Prigozhin ready for RD for example.BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. CNN,Updated 3:11 a.m. ET, August 24, 2023,"Wagner boss listed among plane crash passengers as Russia wages Ukraine war" and ALJAZEERA, Reported:"Prigozhin reported dead: Former Wagner chief on plane crash passenger list" AbDaryaee (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose until we have a clear factual evidence, or, at least, a Russian official statement on this. Everything presented so far was speculation based on a list of passengers. All 10 bodies have been recovered, and can be easily identified by the authorities. Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much speculation and uncertainty. For example, I was just reading Dmitry Utkin.  One source says that "The first thing to understand about the Wagner Group is that there most likely is no Wagner Group"  Rather than being a single, tight and structured organization, it seems to be more of a loose network in a black economy.  That source says that Utkin hasn't been seen in public since 2016 and so his role and status seems quite uncertain. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and strongly disagree that our posting this should be dependent on an "official Russian statement", just post the original blurb with the wording "presumed dead" instead of "killed". It's in the news now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a good middle ground solution for now, I think. Brandmeistertalk  12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We still have a disparity between the blurbs which say he has died (or at least, was on the aeroplane) and the reports which generally say that he is presumed dead. Nigej (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The bodies were just brought to the forensic lab so we could wait until the official autopsy report before posting Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ^ Agree with this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, post now but only bold the crash article. Reliable sources are pretty clear that Prigozhin was listed as a passenger and there were no survivors. If by some bizarre circumstance it turns out to be a body double or he survived by some other means, we can update the blurb or post a new one. I think that's highly unlikely though. If we wait for confirmation from official Russian government sources, it might never come - there's clear incentive for a cover-up. Post now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being on the list of passengers, and that no one survived, is not confirmation that he died. That's the worst type of OR we can be doing at ITN. This is Russia, and I would not put it pass any one there to try to fake their death if they wanted. M asem (t) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many people with the name Yevgeny Prigozhin in Russia. Ericoides (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But not many who would own up to it right now,  ;)    SN54129  13:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Both bolded articles are in decent shape, this is exactly the kind of death that needs a blurb, because of the unusual manner of the death, which needs context and explanation. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WSJ, Russian authorities confirmed Prigozhin is dead, for those of you looking for their confirmation ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not confirmed (no new source): WSJ only attributes its source with Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash northwest of Moscow, according to Russian authorities. and attributes TASS as the source in the earlier brief with A business jet that had Yevgeny Prigozhin ... Tass news agency said citing aviation authorities. We're no closer to an official statement than before. This is just WSJ clickbait. Boud (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) It's not credible that WSJ has better info from Russian authorities than reliable Russian newspapers such as The Moscow Times and Meduza. Boud (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support since he seems to have been confirmed to have died in this, and this is a very notable event following the Wagner mutiny which happened. River10000 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No need to (re!)affirm to the outside world how completely retentive we can be over a couple of words. For all the hand-wringers, stick 'presumed' or 'reported' in front of the claim  allegation assertion already.   SN54129  13:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not about hand-wringing its about saying someone's dead when it's not confirmed. (see WP:BLP). The thing could have been posted in half-an-hour with a more precise wording (and the exclusion of the RDs). Nigej (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was any other source but Russia media reporting, we may do that (I think we did that after US forced claimed a terrorist leader was killed in a strike, once). But we can't trust Russia media one bit here. M asem (t) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, but Id personally go with something like Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led a short-lived mutiny in Russia, is killed along with Dmitry Utkin and eight others in a plane crash in Russia. Kinda missing the story here with the proposed blurbs. If we can also add shocked Pikachu face at the end that would also work. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt I as the story has calmed down and is decently well developed with current knowledge. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 14:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. There is general consensus that this is worthy of posting. The disagreement arose from the lack of certainity/confirmation of the death of certain individuals. There is no neutral official party that can give that confirmation here. The West (and non-aligned countries) are outsiders here. So is Ukraine, unless they did it, in which case they're definitely wouldn't be a neutral source. The crash happened in Russia, but they are suspected by many to have caused it, so what they say cannot be trusted on this either. There's Telegram channels affiliated with The Wagner Group but it's debateable whether we would consider any of them reliable source, and if we did, they're saying Prigozhin et al. are indeed dead in any case. So posted a blurb that says what no one can disagree with as facts. -- KTC (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse posting. I don't have strong opinions about this one way or the other, and for all we know there might be more than has currently been reported, but the closing/posting admin is correct to disregard comments based on speculation or personal interpretation beyond what is reported by the sources. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. Not sure I could have ever possibly put it anymore succinctly than you have, . What ever happened to WP:VNT? Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: So, considering their absence in the blurb on MainPage, I suppose Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin are now separate RD noms, eh? These two candidates should be evaluated separated. Hence follow-up templates below. --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason the posted blurb do not mention Prigozhin and Utkin was simply the disagreement over confirmation of their deaths. I would suggest that if there's consensus to post that they're dead, then just change the blurb rather than have them as separate RDs. -- KTC (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure when we will get confirmations. If soon, yes. If the blurb scrolls off first, then names can go onto the RD line on MainPage after the wikibios get reviewed again. Hopefully by that time, we don't have to deal with problems like new unreferenced text or neutrality tags, etc. These things will need to be dealt with then. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW some sources now claim Prigozhin has been identified by a Wagner commander by a body feature(a missing portion of a finger) and that Utkin was identified by his tattoos. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Part of Blurb) RD: Yevgeny Prigozhin

 * Support although it should be clarified whether "presumed dead" people can fit in WP:ITNRD - even though he's most likely dead, the article still refers to him as "presumed dead". Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I'm onboard with the blurb due to it going purely off what we know, but I don't feel that "presumed dead" is a bridge we should cross for RDs. Vote will change if/when it's actually confirmed. The Kip (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this above. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 331dot. I responded up there. -- PFHLai (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. No need to double-dip here. If we have a blurb saying they are dead or presumed to be so, then we don't need a RD as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb specifically does not mention them for that reason. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it should. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose first off, this person is only Presumed dead, and secondly, his "death" was already posted in ITN in the form of the 2023 Tver plane crash, so there would be no reason to post his death twice, although if his death is confirmed by outside sources, it may be RD-worthy due to the widespread media coverage. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose When confirmed, add to blurb. Until then, no.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A link to this wikibio is now part of a blurb on MainPage. Considered as Posted. Though the link is not bolded. --PFHLai (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dmitry Utkin

 * Mild oppose, very little updates about his recent (post-2017) activities and current status in the Wagner group, which feels like an important part that is currently missing. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose although this is RD-quality and worthy of RD in every sense, and is very big news to me due to some personal reasons, this is already posted in the form of ITN, and there is no reason why it should be posted twice. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose When confirmed, add it to blurb already in ITN. Until then, no.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Query: This wikibio does not appear in the blurb on the plane crash on MainPage. Should this go on RD? Is it ready for RD? --PFHLai (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death has been confirmed, and article is not linked in the blurb. Page looks alright. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per comment immediately above. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted With the death now having been confirmed, the above opposes are nullified. The article is in good shape.  Schwede 66  08:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valery Chekalov

 * Query: This wikibio does not appear in the blurb on the plane crash on MainPage. Should this go on RD? Is it ready for RD? --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death has been confirmed, and article is not linked in the blurb. Page is short but not a stub. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  08:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Chandrayaan-3

 * Support. Quality seems to be there for ITN. S5A-0043 Talk 12:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be in good shape for ITN. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This is the 3rd Indian lunar exploration mission, so not significant. Also, the 100th+ overall lunar exploration mission. Footnotes like this shouldn't take up ITN space just because the article is "full enough". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:ITNR, "so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." S5A-0043 Talk 13:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can still oppose an item being ITN:R. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can but it should at least be grounded in some rationale to make us diverge from policy. Yes multiple lunar missions but how many of them that were for a landing and especially since ITN started (which has posted every single one). We did not create an exception to ITNR for China, UAE, Russia etc. and there is no substantiation to do so now, besides WP:I don't like it as expressed by the above user (like most ITNR opposes). Gotitbro (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposition to an item being on ITNR should be raised on the ITN talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was the first Indian lunar expedition to actually succeed and the first human landing on the south pole. Very much a notable story. — Knightof  theswords  13:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite a human landing but still incredibly impressive PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Human as in human operated joint. — Knightof  theswords  15:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess so. Tremendous achievement nonetheless PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, so your argument is invalid. Plus, the previous two didn't land on the moon (okay, Chandrayaan-2 did land technically, but it crash-landed). Tube·of·Light 13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't a valid argument. My argument is valid based on my opinion that it is not significant. The text from the ITN page reads exactly: "Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments." B is my contention despite what the contradictory text in ITNR says. By my vote in the consensus, I do not regard B to be satisfied, by extension its inclusion in ITNR. Your opinion of which argument is or isn't valid is thus meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the program's first *landing*. Which makes it more significant than the other two, not less. (After all, Apollo 11 is more significant than its predecessors.) ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Third Indian, yes. But the first to land near the south pole and India's first one to land. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, following the landing. The refs for the "first soft landing near the lunar south pole" seem out of date. Probably the "India achieved multiple landmarks with Chandrayaan-3" etc section will need to be deleted unless sources are added. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per @Zombie Philosopher and @Nigej  Abo Yemen ✉  13:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is nearly there, just a tiny bit of work needed. I also bold linked Chandrayaan-3 since it wasn’t for some reason. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support! - One of the biggest leaps in Lunar exploration this decade! ISRO's progress has been truly inspiring. The first rover on the south pole, making a lot of headlines. What a story! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I believe Altblurb III is the best one to post as the fact that this is the first spacecraft on the lunar south pole and the first Indian spacecraft on the Moon is very notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging that there are a few unsourced statements, Support Alt1. The other blurbs are too wordy in trying to fit in being the first the land at the lunar south pole, we can't just acknowledge it. --M asem (t) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, not every day you have a new lunar landing! And it's India's first soft landing on the Moon. Artem.G (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the first landing on the lunar south pole and a huge step for India's space programme.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Good article and amazing day for the world and India. A spacecraft made with the fraction of the money NASA uses makes history like this! Support altblurb1. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - But lets be clear that it has not "explored" the south pole. It just landed and is starting to test its instruments. Only Original and Atl1 are correct. 103.247.13.214 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exploration process has already begun PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support only the fourth country overall to land on the moon and the first to do so at the poles, need I say more? I’ll be waiting for the opposers here to show up on the Artemis II nom on the basis of that being the tenth manned moon mission and the US’s sixth.AryKun (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, proposed ALT4 as I’m not keen on the wording of the other four. The Kip (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support, this is a record as it is the first to have soft landing near south pole of the moon. Dr. Dinesh Karia (Talk) (contribs) 17:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support: First mission to successfully land on the south pole, please see The Time update (or search on the web yourself). This is a major achievement. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: First landing on the lunar south pole and a major accomplishment for India. 174.112.0.237 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Successful missions to the moon will always be notable in my book. Article looks good too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is on the WP:ITNR list so notability does not need to be argued. If you disagree with this being on the ITNR list, raise it at the talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is good enough, subject is in the news. Altblurb III is best because it really illustrates the significance.  Bremps  ...  18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Congratulations to the ISRO for the first ever landing on the Moon's south pole! Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support We obviously have to run this too when we've just blurbed the less successful Russian Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2023 Sudan conflict

 * Oppose. Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict is being updated almost every day, and I see significant activity on the main page as well (the last 50 edits go back only ~a week, which shows more active editing than even the main Ukraine invasion article, ignoring the numerous more specific battle pages and timelines). I don’t think it should be removed. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That article itself still struggles to maintain weekly updates; there are still whole days without any edits. — Knightof  theswords  12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above. Maybe in a few weeks PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still ongoing conflict. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is an ongoing conflict and should not be treated differently from the russian invasion of ukraine  Abo Yemen  ✉  13:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose still ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; "daily" updates are not the standard as listed at WP:ONGOING states " Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." This more than exceeds that standard.  Willing to reconsider if no updates are made when that milestone occurs.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing addition: 2023 Hawaii wildfires

 * Oppose It looks like while there are still flames around Lahaina, most of the wildfires have been extinguished or run dry. Thus, at this point, it is now in the rescue and recovery phase, which could last months - that it, not well suited for ongoing. --M asem (t) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The death toll is currently about 115, if all the missing are dead then it'd be 965 and the article recently said it'll take about 10 more days to look. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We simply have never kept a disaster article with a long-term search and rescue effort well after the triggering event is over as ongoing because while there may be daily updates to, for example, the death toll, the actual event has been completed. Perhaps, if that toll drastically increases to 1000, a new blurb to say "Over 1000 people are consider dead or missing from the Hawaii wildfires." might be appropriate. M asem (t) 03:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With the death toll already projected to be over 1,000 - then surely it's notable now - at least for an ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 11:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Continuing and future updates seem to most likely be solely incrementing the confirmed deaths. Does not seem to be significant enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'm still wondering why we didnt that Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose totally agree with Jayron. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. The fires themselves are over, it's just a matter of search and rescue now. The   Kip  07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dun Mihaka

 * Posted There is a comment from 2008 on the article's talk page mentioning earlier candidacies in general elections. That was indeed correct; I've added four candidacies to the article. What's there is adequately sourced and I consider the article meeting RD criteria.  Schwede 66  08:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexandra Paul (figure skater)

 * Support I've sourced the several citation needed tags in the article. None remain, article looks good! Tails   Wx  02:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Suggest the disambiguation be displayed for her RD listing? There is another famous Alexandra Paul who is still living. Farolif (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: C. R. Rao

 * Oppose Significant sourcing work needed. Early life section has one uncited statement, many unsourced paragraphs and statements in career, a good amount of uncited awards and an uncited selected publications section. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Extremely notable, top in the field of statistics.
 * Author of theorems that are known worldwide. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Would consider a blurb though, given is influence on statistics. 2A02:908:671:4F20:65AB:B238:15B1:9774 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere near ready.  Schwede 66  08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Susan Ople

 * Oppose Advocacies section has three cn tags and there’s one cn tag in biography section. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Needs more work.BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still nowhere near ready.  Schwede 66  07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Heath Streak

 * Comment Well, this is awkward, but happily he appears to not be dead. The link above has also been withdrawn. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed; RD posted) RD/Blurb: Toto Cutugno

 * Oppose Discography is uncited and I'm not seeing a source for the DoB either. Support RD Article quality has improved sufficiently. Weak oppose blurb Article doesn't sufficiently establish impact. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One cn tag and discography uncited. Support RD Article looks good. Also weak oppose blurb, there's no indication in the article of him being one of the most famous Italian singers or household name in countries. A legacy section would be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is said how influential.he was Kirill C1 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to boldly add that info to the article with the source, making the required section. The article itself needs to demonstrate the impact, not just external news sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can work on creating a legacy section or incorporate that in the career section. The article needs to show the impact Cutugno had in his field or how he was his country's most renowned singer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Most famous Italian singer, Eurovision winner, six decades long career, household mame in many countries. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Famous nor household name are valid considerations for blurbing RD. M asem (t) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article seems to have been fully-cited, including discography. Oppose blurb per TDKR, as well as just the obvious per my prior RD/blurb votes. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - now sourced and ready. RD is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD per others. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A true music legend with decades-long career and numerous accolades.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. M asem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This depends on what you want to (dis)prove. Long career and numerous accolades are not decisive but are most definitely significant indicators for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but let's make sure in providing rationales of this type, that the article reflects how those aspects have translated into significance (which when I last looked, lacked that), rather than just stating it in the !vote rationale. M asem (t) 02:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD per all of the above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is sufficient for noting that a person died, there's no extra context that needs to be provided by a blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, his resume doesn't befit a blurb. Andrea Bocelli or ABBA he is not; having one hit song and winning eurovision isn't enough. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Thailand prime minister vote and return of Thaksin Shinawatra
PS The Srettha Thavisin article has also been updated and could be the bolded item, though I feel that the election article gives better context on the process. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support this - ITNR declares HoG changes important - but maybe Shinawatra could be separated or removed to clean it up a bit? I get it's important of course with me having followed these politics for a while, but it's just really long
 * River10000 (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Oh my, what a convoluted story! Would suggest bolding the new PM Srettha Thavisin and adding a picture of himd, and deleting Thaksin Shinawatra from the blurb (if he gets pardoned by the new gov at some point, we can deliberate posting that). But I'm also fine keeping him in. Khuft (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a shorter but more concise altblurb. The quality of Shinawatra's article needs a lot of work. On the other hand, Thavisin's is good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I support posting the new PM, but the Shinawatra story is distinct enough where a separate blurb is needed IMO. It's not immediately apparent to a casual reader why he has relevance to Thailand getting a new PM. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support two different blurbs I think each deserve their own blurbs given how long a single blurb might be. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - PM election is ITN/R (I think) even though the election was posted a few months ago. Support the return of Shinawatra too. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be blurbed together.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support either combined blurb or two different blurbs, but both aspects should be mentioned in some way. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support PM Blurb and Oppose Shinawatra blurb. Former is in theory INT/R. I don't see what is so significant however about coming back from a "self-imposed" exile. He has not been in a position of power since 2006. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He has not been in an official position of power since 2006, but he has been pulling strings from afar, the central polarising figure splitting the fault lines of Thai politics for most of the past two decades. But yes, such background information can't easily be conveyed in a single blurb. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've adjusted the nom to have Srettha's article as the bolded item instead of the election's per the first three comments. I've also added Alt3, which leaves out Thaksin's return. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suppot blurb in principle, there is significance. Kirill C1 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt III The PM change is WP:ITNR, and the article quality is sufficient. Thaksin's page has a ways to go to meet sourcing standards, and should not hold up the main item.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted a brief blurb that mentions only the new prime minister. Happy to lengthen it if there's a good proposal, but leading with "following general elections in May" makes it sound like this all happened in May. He also wasn't appointed or voted in by "parliament", it's the National Assembly (Thailand). (If longer is desired, I'd suggest "") Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My intent was to reflect the unusualness of the situation a bit, as in Following three months of unprecedented post-election wrangling in which the party that won the most seats was blocked from forming a government by the unelected senate..., but that's not really possible to convey within constraints of a blurb, so shortening might be for the best. That said, more of the relevant info is in 2023 Thai general election than the Srettha Thavisin article, so I would rather that a link be somehow included. How about "Srettha Thavisin (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Thailand after an election by the National Assembly."? (Personally I try to avoid using election for the parliamentary vote as it's a bit confusing, but some news sources do use it so I guess it shouldn't really be a problem. Also, parliament is an unofficial term used quite commonly by news sources to refer to the National Assembly, but let's stick to the more technically correct term as you suggested.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ...leading with 'following general elections in May' makes it sound like this all happened in May: If it "all happened in May", it wouldn't still be posted now. The delay is a major part of the story. The New York Times article begins with: After a three-month delay, Thailand’s Parliament chose the country’s next prime minister on Tuesday, picking a real estate tycoon from a party seen as acceptable to conservative elites. The move ends, for now, a prolonged period of uncertainty that had pushed the country to the cusp of a political crisis. Parliament is interchangeable with National Assembly, and is probably better understood globally, without needing a click. For example, The Bangkok Post headline was "Parliament elects Srettha prime minister"—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: May: yes, I understand what's happening. Unfortunately, the ambiguous wording muddles the timing and doesn't make it clear to readers that there were two separate votes by different things. If you have a better way of conveying the timing and complex political dynamics here, I'm all ears. On parliament: on a quick scan sources appear to mostly use the phrase "Thailand's parliament" as their wording, like The New York Times. The original altblurb did not use "Thailand" until the final word.
 * @Bagumba + cc : Perhaps this? "Thailand's parliament elects Srettha Thavisin (pictured) as Prime Minister of Thailand." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the delay can be clarified as Three months after general elections..., though the above short suggestion is also Fine by me (but maybe pipe out the last Thailand as it reads as a bit redundant?) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How about: "Thailand's parliament elects Srettha Thavisin (pictured) as Prime Minister following general elections in May." The delay is more explicit.—Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * much better the one you propose. I support it. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for the great discussion, all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Number 1 with a bullet

 * Comment Even better, it's in French-speaking Swiss media. [ https://www.letemps.ch/culture/musiques/une-chanson-country-contre-les-elites-propulse-un-inconnu-au-sommet-des-ventes-aux-etats-unis] But I don't think nominations are the best place for you to be continuing petty disputes about completely different issues (whether offline headlines in one country means a story should be posted) Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What does "reaching #1 immediately" mean? Lots of songs went to #1 upon release. This record sounds like less of an earth-shattering moment in pop culture than a trivial tidbit thats getting a lot of attention because of its cool factor. Kurtis (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswell   talk  10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb&mdash;sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - "Brandy" did not enter the chart at number one. It took over two months to reach the top spot...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand better what the claimed record is. I’m still not convinced it’s important enough to post though, and we don’t usually post items like this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither the BBC nor the CBC sources make any mention of the Billboard charting, only the political American pop cultural aspects of the song's reception. And as mentioned above, there is no record being broken. The reported historical achievement is specifically for doing so "with no prior chart history in any form", so oppose as worded. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Guardian says ...debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making him the first artist to do this with no prior chart history in any form.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
 * Rolling Stone cites this announcement on Billboard as the source. That gives a variety of details including six artists who did something similar but not quite so out-of-the-blue.  I suppose they have access to a database as they comment on other near-misses like "the singer-songwriter marks a rare unsigned artist at No. 1 on the Hot 100. Lisa Loeb became the first such act, when “Stay (I Missed You)” led in 1994, although the song was released on RCA Records". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Neither of those songs entered the chart at number 1 (i.e. was at number 1 in its very first week on the chart), which is what Anthony's song has done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah right, gotcha. It does seem like something that's a bit of interesting trivia more suited to DYK than ITN, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite appearances, there is no minimum death requirement for ITN entries and the section often features lots of sport which is similar pop culture. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a political topic due to the nature of the song, and would fall under "day to day" aspects of the current culture war happening in the US. It is the type of story that makes headlines but the encyclopedic nature is fuzzy and unclear. (I can also see that if this was posted as is, that there would likely be some readers and editors offended that we even gave that song the light of day on the main page, but that's not a reason to oppose, just more a caution of where this may go). --M asem (t) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of protest songs of this sort going back some time – see industrial folk music. I always liked Sixteen Tons, which was another big hit back in the day.  And the culture war aspects of this one are not that new – see Okie from Muskogee, for example.  Anyway, if some readers don't like this genre – see WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. M asem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should oppose an item purely because it is politically divisive. In the run-up to the 2024 election there will be a lot of notable, if polarising, events that will be nominated on here. If we didn't want to be politically divisive then we would not have posted the 2020 election, or Jan 6th, or BLM, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon." ).  Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends». It is the media that has politicized an artistic product.  George Orwell warned about those who believe what they see on the media, and disregard their own eyes and ears.XavierItzm (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not that this is a politically conflicting song, but simple underneath the trivia of being the first #1 by a first time artist (that itself is not ITN worthy), it is what politics have driven this song to be #1 that is really the headline here. And because this is a political issue with no clear immediate consequences, its not the type of story we post. M asem (t) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem above.
 * River10000 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Songs charting on a national chart is not for ITN I believe.BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is essentially about right-wing American politics and sits with other similar stories in the news, eg Trump/Georgia, Trump/Primary debates. Not for ITN, in my opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this is better suited for DYK. YD407OTZ (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Have we ever posted such records before? If not, than oppose - at the risk of entering into political territory, as a right-winger myself, it's pretty clear that this was the product of immense astroturfing at the hands of Conservative Inc. — Knightof  theswords  14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Difficult to answer your question. In the news/Candidates/July 2019 ended as "no consensus" despite 17 weeks at number 1. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best. I don't think ITN should be for music charts PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. Good faith nom, but we are not a music charts ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Interesting, but more trivia then actually important. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Trivial impact and of dubious encyclopedic value. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is a DYK, not an ITN. Andrew, you seriously need to stop nominating literally everything and consider whether it's even going to stand up to WP:SNOW before posting it here. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister of Cambodia

 * Support&mdash;A new head of government, and his article is adequately sourced. 👍🏻 Kurtis (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per before, article looks okay – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate article. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good, and changes in HoG are important. River10000 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * support - sourced. Looks ok. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. I've added an altblurb that seems more accurate to me: today he has been sworn in (he is no longer appointed PM. Hun Manet is now the official and formal Prime Minister) and it's important to add that his father spent almost four decades at the helm of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Got a new leader & a well-sourced article? I give it support. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem Frankly I think altblurb II was the best option. More accurate. What do you think? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As nom I'm also endorsing ALT2, feel like it's worth noting his father was leader for nearly 40 years. The Kip (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alsorian@o97 @User:The Kip ✅ per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! _-_Alsor (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Muhammad Hussain Najafi

 * Not yet ready Article has several CN tags and the prose is exceptionally poor. Curbon7 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abe Jacobs

 * Almost ready I've placed an unreferenced section tag. Otherwise, the article is in very good shape.  Schwede 66  00:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed sourcing issue. As stated, rest of the article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uteng Suryadiyatna

 * Support It looks like this has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD by User:Spencer yesterday. --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Probo Yulastoro

 * Comment There’s a paragraph that doesn’t have any references. I put a cn tag at the end of the paragraph. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've provided citation to the paragraph. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
 * Comment The article needs a copy edit for improved prose.  Schwede 66  19:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out parts of the article that needs to be copyedited? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
 * I just needs an English speaker to have a go, . Probo won the election with 51.1% votes — a slight margin of about 20 thousand votes – that's not how you'd say that.  Schwede 66  03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry. I'll try to fix what I can. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the bad prose. I hope this could be posted, or else this thing would disappear. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think the prose is fine now & this has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Athletics Championships

 * Support Ongoing - The World Championships of athletics. Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike the Olympics or the World Cups, this typically does not get major daily news coverage to make it necessary for ongoing. This event is ITNR for its completion. And even with that, comparing this year's article to the 2022 one, this one is nowhere close to be ready for posting to main page. --M asem (t) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality I don't know about you, but all the newspapers I'm reading do have significant coverage of the athletics championships, especially the marquee events like the 100m, 200m, 4x400m, and other ones with more charismatic athletes like hammer throw and shot-put. 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is a table farm, and very little prose about the events.  Tables should supplement prose, not replace it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - virtually nothing but tables. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats - The 2023 World Athletics Championships ranked #39 most read for August 19th, 2023, or 181,291 views. Sandwiched in between XXXX (beer) and Beverley Allitt. Ranked just a little higher at #35 on the 20th. As Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Also, oppose on quality and probably does not merit an ongoing post either. A blurb, yes. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * #35 out of 6 million is quite respectable. That's better than most of the ITN blurbs and comparable with the current top blurb.  It would therefore fit right in. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Lucy Letby sentencing

 * Support Canada is following. Word is there'll be an inquiry, maybe new laws. Fairly unusual sentence and particularly heinous crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This exact article was posted, and pulled, just a few days ago. As a note, I supported it then, and I still do.  But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's genuinely quite surprised me. I didn't think Wikipedia would stoop to Reddit's level... Osarius 14:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These blurbs don't start with "in the United Kingdom", though, that could help. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the supports said something to the effect of "big news in the UK", which isn't a reason that is going to convince international editors, especially when the impact of the story is questionable. No one is saying the UK's news means nothing, but we're clearly looking for more here beyond "it's a big story in x country". DarkSide830 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's right in the instructions of this page. It says, and I quote "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive."  Literally everyone who says "Oppose, because this is only important in the UK" should be summarily ignored by the admins who post articles, and it's a major failure of the system that they aren't.  It literally says that argument is invalid.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Supporters shouldn't mention that it's big in one country, either, just reminds those opposed to that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But, the instructions don't say that. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So? It's still true. Anyway, I closed the outdated nomination, there was no consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * True does not mean relevant to the discussion. Lots of things are true, but unless they matter, they just distract from the discussion at hand, which should be an assessment of article quality and an assessment of how the news is covering the story, and NOT a chance for people to flex their cultural gatekeeping muscles.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is sourced and ready. This case har received attention both national and international, throughout an extensive amount of time.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The Letby story has legs as it was still the front page lead in the Times and Telegraph today. It has dropped a bit with our readership (#24 yesterday) but is still getting more views than ITN's blurb topics such as Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? If not, why not? If we're playing the "ITN must serve English-speaking readers' interests" game, where is it in the Australian printed newspapers?  Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * this Whataboutism needs to stop. If other article subjects are notable or not based on nationality is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unknown Temptation asks whether the stories currently on the front page of French newspapers are suitable to go on ITN. Looking at the first headline listed, which is on the cover of Le Monde, it seems to be this story in their English edition: China's unprecedented economic crisis worries the rest of the world.  Wikipedia covers that story in the article 2020–2023 Chinese property sector crisis and, apart from some quality issues, there's no reason why that shouldn't be considered here too -- I've already been wondering whether to nominate it.  But obstructing a story set in England isn't going to help in getting a story about another country posted.  ITN's problem is that it isn't posting much of anything and one reason is the beggar-my-neighbour obstructionism that we see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Close . The more important story is the conviction, whose discussion is ongoing. All another nomination does is split the dialogue, which should be redirected to that discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This one is today's news and implies the conviction; close that one as outdated and incomplete. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck because the previous discussion has since been closed. As of now am neutral, but preferring a blurb that focused on the conviction over the sentencing. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per Darkside, as well as my oppose vote on the other nom. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per Darkside & The Kip. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All above are based on the notion that a discussion about the conviction is ongoing. That's no longer the case. You're all disqualified. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The closes are, the opposes are not. Nice power-move attempt, though. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, "thanks", now only yours has a reason to oppose (indirectly, but still). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * M8, as stated in my initial closure that you reverted, the conviction and sentencing are inextricably linked; do you really believe that consensus would be against posting the conviction but magically pull an Italy and change their tune when it comes to the sentencing? Considering how this new nom is already looking, I think not. — Knightof  theswords  17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who's feeling defeated? You're a Swede, I'm a Canadian, Jayron's an American. This idea that the other 40% of us are the only sorts on Earth who might care is defeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO)., okay, effective duplicate, happy now? — Knightof  theswords  05:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, the discussion was not closed when most of the above comments were made, but okay then. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and added alt3 for clarity. It does seem like a big news story, regardless of where it took place. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I am becoming very disillusioned with ITN and have cut back my participation due to the constant battles over supposed UK and US bias, with ITNCDONT point 2 routinely ignored. Andrew is quite right above when he says that opposing a UK based story will do nothing to get stories from other countries posted. A whole life tariff is exceptionally rare and this story is getting widespread coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My read of the !votes between these two, excluding the issue of the fast posting if the first one, is not an argument about this affecting only one country, only just in one country where this occurs, this will have little impact and is only a matter of closure on a tragic event. It still was only a domestic (not international) crime and did expose flaws in the British health system, but unless I am missing something in the current article, we're not going to see a massive change in the system there. I don't think saying this is like celebrity or gossip news is a fair comparison since this was a serious need for justice to the families that lost their children from this, but at the same type it is more of a spectacle (a highly visible trial) due to the heinous nature of the crime. But it is not going to have a major impact within the UK compared to, say, Boris Johnson resigning. M asem (t) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support - I have my gripes over the fact that this would have never even come close to being posted if it was a US story; however, ultimately, I think that this meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and should be posted. I hope that this incident shall be a learning experience and inform us that we shouldn't be creating arbitrary standards on perceived notability requirements over which side of the Atlantic the story occured in. — Knightof  theswords  20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The media in the US are reporting this and baby murder on this scale would easily get reported in the US PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Point is that if this was in the US it would likely be rejected as provincial, but alas. The Kip (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A big UK and global news story, which has legs and is sure to become one of the largest scandals in NHS history. Widely covered and of interest. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a prominent headline whose inclusion on ITN is in the interest of our readers. While we're here, the conviction post shouldn't have been pulled, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Conviction is the time that we should have posted this, but as that discussion has been closed in favour of this one this is where I have to put my support. I don't know how you can get more significant than the conviction of the most prolific child murderer in the history of a country with a very long history and one of the top 2 cases of individual medical malpractice by an individual since at least the creation of the NHS (the other being Harold Shipman). This case will have a very long-lasting impact. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I think the event is notable enough to merit ITN inclusion, as it’s pretty unusual and significant. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Luminous Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk)</b> 00:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose regardless of whether this is a new nomination or supposed to be combined with the one below. It's tabloid news, and has no notable long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Long term impact. It has been in media since 2017.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we didn't post conviction, we shouldn't post this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The conviction was posted. For half a day.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is a uniquely heinous crime. Its also unusual in that she was on female serial killer only a handful of which we have pages for in every country. "Letby is the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history." - To be frank, I don't think the people objecting to this nomination would object to posting the American equivalent of this person.--Llewee (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Uniquely? The article itself mentions multiple other medical practitioner murderers both in the UK and elsewhere, such as Beverley Allitt, who also was also known for more or less the same thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Taking both discussions into account (and also accounting for those who !voted on both) I believe there is consensus to post this again. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get consensus, but there doesn't appear to be any. This really should be pulled. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  18:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightof  theswords  19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's definitely greater. Just look at how few opposes this one has. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Haven't taken part in this (or the previous) discussion, but let's please not start a new discussion on pulling this! It's done, it's posted, no harm is done by having this blurbed. Going back and forth posting and pulling this for trivial disagreements on notoriety is what harms ITN's reputation within the broader community and does us no favours. I've shared my opinion previously that Pulling should only be done in extreme cases, where quality issues are present. Khuft (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ↑↑↑ This. In an ideal world (an ideal ITN/C) it'd get pushed off in 48-72 hours anyway. The article is also now in much better shape than when the verdict was posted. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose - per my opinion in the last discussion. I also would like to mention that there hardly appears to be a consensus to post here, and accounting for the last nomination (which was pulled), I don't understand how this was posted.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There certainly was no consensus to post this, but I guess if you keep trying to post something on ITN long enough, you'll eventually get your way. It's frustrating. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 18 supports (edit: Jayron32's support containing a valid support rationale was hatted due to a rant which spurred unrelated discussion) with only 6 opposes (DarkSide withdrew theirs), 4 of which under the rationale that the previous discussion was open. I'd definitely call that a consensus. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I count 7 opposes, 8 if you include the most recent post-posting oppose. That's not an overwhelming amount of support appropriate for consensus. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Kip's, TwistedAxe's, Alsor's, PrecariousWorlds', Banedon's and yours. Who did I miss? I think 18 to 6 (which is basically 2) is an overwhelming amount of support, not to mention BabbaQ's argument of long term impact against an oppose wasn't addressed. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Counting !votes is the antithesis of how Wikipedia works. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the antithesis. It's a convenient way of getting a feel for the discussion at a glance as long as the arguments for each !vote are all valid and not really addressed. In this case I'd only count 1 oppose as unaddressed and 1 support as addressed. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment - A whole-life order? Sounds like something my insurance agent is nagging a client to meet his monthly sales goal. Any different than "imprisoned for life"? CoatCheck (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one. According to its article it has no possibility of parole or other premature release. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a WP:ENGVAR situation, where we defer to British usage although American would differ. The words "whole-life order" are blue-linked in the blurb for anyone who wants more of an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Daniel Cohen (economist)

 * ￼Oppose for now - apart from list of works and awards, the article is only 2 sentences. Needs a lot of expansion. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Luminous Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk)</b> 16:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody has worked on it; still a stub.  Schwede 66  19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Ecuadorian general election

 * Comment I've been working on this article for quiet a bit to make sure it's good for posting once a president is elected. Not sure if we post first round election results on ITN? If so, shouldn't González be the one who's pictured since she came in first place? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mainly put Noboa since he was an out of a shock to make the second round. It makes reasonable sense to swap them back, though. River10000 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - ITN usually waits until the election concludes, not when the first round is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but the assassination of Villavicencio being in ITN made me think that maybe the primary deserves also to be there. River10000 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wait until the winner is announced.  TomMasterReal  TALK 21:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment While the presidential election is going to a run-off, the parliamentary election appears to be complete. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we should wait for the results of the second round. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Guatemalan general election

 * There's an orange tag in the Results section that needs to be addressed, but everything else looks well cited on a quick read-through. Once the orange tag is taken care of, I'd support this. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My opinion isn't very important, I know, but looks good to me. Pretty important to regional stability - that orange tag seems cleaned up also? I support this. River10000 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Should the blurb mention the party in general along with the president considering this is a general election? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - A very significant election outcome for the country and the region. Nosferattus (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic democracy win. Article looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as article seems up to par quality-wise. Proposed ALT1 based on suggestion above. The Kip (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm working on updating the table for mayor results and will be removing the orange tag once I'm done. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Orange tag now removed. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Just to add to the pile, it's quite notable and the article looks good. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest AltBlurb2: short & sweet, focused on the outcome rather than the process, and Arévalo's article is somewhat tidier than the election article. A bit sea-of-bluish, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted tweaked altblurb 2. The runoff is the only new news because the congressional elections happened with round 1 of the presidential vote in June, so the first altblurb wasn't an option. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Isabel Crook

 * Oppose article has multiple CN tags that need to be dealt with. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added citations to address the CN tags, plus some more refs from her obituary in The Guardian. There's a lot more that could be written about someone who lived through 107 years of Chinese history, but I don't think that prevents an ITN inclusion now. : Can you take a look? Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait It's just two right now. Another might arise, but it's not like waiting for a filmography to never get ready. Fun Facts: She was 107 and also British! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article now has the basics of her life (plenty of expansion also possible). When a 107-year-old with a very interesting life history dies, it seems like a good time to bring them to prominence.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does anyone want to make the single-sentence intro longer, please? --PFHLai (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape., I've added content to the lead. Hope it helps!  Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 01:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tails Wx, for expanding the intro. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Luna 25 crash

 * Support There's another moon race warming up and so we'll be hearing more of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exciting times! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the previous crash landings of lunar probes were posted. The funny part is that we might also end up merging the blurb with the Indian lunar lander blurb(if it succeeds). Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - signigicant event, article well referenced and good to go. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The main problem I see is that, even if this is significant enough for ITN, the article says nothing about the significance of the crash, only listing basic event updates. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support - First Russian lunar mission in 47 years, In The News. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have provided ALT1.  Schwede 66  17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Since it's ITN/R and the article quality is sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this was discussed when the Spacex rocket exploded a while ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that a failed mission is generally not notable enough for ITN, nor valid for the recurring ITN on rockets. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe it was decided that launch failures/first launches aren’t worthy (which I agree with, considering the sheer number of new commercially-built rockets); this is something different entirely, in being a mission failure. The Kip (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I can't even recall the last time a lunar lander even made contact with the moon, let alone a crash. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Its been over 40 years since Russia (then the USSR) attempted to land on the moon, hence why its the Luna 25, and it failed. So I see the relevance. Stick to first blurb though, not the alternate. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support significant event because this is the first time in 40 years that Russia tried to land on the moon, so this would be significant in the new space race. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, in particular TwistedAxe. The Kip (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The space race begins again... and it looks like it's going to be real close this time. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per the strong consensus in support above. That said, while the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY, per it could definitely be expanded upon. I would particularly love to see more information about the great power politics that got attached to this mission. There's also one citation tagged for needing a non-primary source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Prose summaries need to be added to both the final and the tournament article before this can be posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prose summary of the match is needed first. The article for the final also needs more citations so that the orange tag is fixed and preferably the stay on topic tags should be fixed, but they’re not as show stopping. Support Everything’s fixed, looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Possibly the biggest event in women's football yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The event is ITN/R, there's no need to vote on significance, per the little disclaimer on the bottom please say something on the quality of the article or update to contribute meaningfully. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose until a prose summary is added and citation issues are addressed. Much of the Background section is also filled with statistics with little meaningful context and should be trimmed.  Sounder Bruce  17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose summary has been added, but several citations in the Background section have been removed due to being cited to a Forbes contributor piece (which are unreliable per WP:RSP).  Sounder Bruce  20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A World Cup final! And this year's Women's World Cup has been much more mediatized than the previous ones. Definitely far above the notability threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need for comments on significance: One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, didn't notice! You're right. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support! Came here to express shock that it has been a day and a half and this still isn't posted! The articles both look good, and we've posted significantly worse quality articles for men's sports no one cares about. Tens of millions of people watched this live, including me. This was the best WWC yet in my opinion. Post it! e.b. (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Add photo in nombox - literally no argument has been made for not having the photo other than I presume vibes? We've featured screenshots on the MP multiple times; it's not the best, but it doesn't have to be a damn NASA planetary scan either. — Knightof  theswords  05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Moot This article has already been run daily in ITN for an entire month now (with about 5 million views). Further discussion of quality and/or significance is therefore largely pointless as it's a done deal.  All that remains is a formality as the wording of the blurb is stereotyped. What needs attention now is the 2023 World Athletics Championships which started yesterday, is ITN/R and seems to need some TLC.  Shouldn't that now take the Ongoing slot? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added a summary to the final article. The cite issues are still there for now. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Olga Carmona 2020 06.png Added photo to proposed blurb. [[User:Hameltion|Hameltion]] (talk &#124; contribs) 23:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support & remove from Ongoing per WP:ITNR, and remove from Ongoing due to the whole thing concluding obviously. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and remove from ongoing. I had the same opinion as Twistedaxe coming into this discussion. The event is dunzo, and it's time for the blurb. I echo the concerns of Andrew as well on placing the World Athletics Championships over under ongoing also.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 01:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support as article meets FP minimum criteria. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd post this, but no one has tackled the issues identified above. 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is lacking any prose about the final (except in the lead) and 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final is correctly tagged for needing more citations. I'm thinking this could be posted even with just one article bolded if someone puts in the work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; oppose as 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final has an orange maintenance tag. And I agree that if we post, we should simultaneously remove the tournament from "ongoing".  Schwede 66  03:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No Photo, Remove Ongoing Regardless The original version is bad, the crop is worse and the tournament is over. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality As others have already pointed out, 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final still has a tag for additional citations. Also, I am in agreement that the tournament should removed from ongoing. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They think it's all over We're still showing the event as Ongoing which is wrong as it's over now. I was amazed to read that the winning team had just two hours to get to the airport afterwards and so they didn't hang about.  We should likewise pull the ongoing entry to show that we're on the ball.
 * But Oppose posting the link to the final as its prose is too purple and contains several Colemanballs. Here's a good example, "She was seeking to become the first manager to win the tournament with a foreign national team and the oldest manager to win the tournament, having aged 53 years 9 months 25 days during the final."
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha! Sad. Anyway, No Longer Ongoing (for the record). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support without photo I have finally dealt with all the unsourced statements in the final article, so should be gtg on quality grounds. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Listen, like most people, I absolutely don't care about this event. This said, it's so notable to, uh, people who are very fond of football, I guess, that it should be in the news even if the article just says "Viva siempre España!".  c o m p l a i n e r  14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Notice that "so" before "notable"? It's there because it's ITNR, but not actually ITN and these discussions about commas and lighting end up having things that should be ITN get YN and straight into WGAFAL before they actually are ITN. And that's why being rude is dumb.
 *  c o m p l a i n e r  21:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Problems mentioned above has been dealt with as far as I can tell. Definitely a event for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once CN tags are fixed: There's still around 4-5 CN tags on the article about the match, but otherwise both articles are in decent shape for ITN. Should expect them to get fixed very soon. Neutral on the issues about the photo. S5A-0043 Talk 02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and mark Ready again - CN tags fixed on the final article. Note that Aitana Bonmatí was given Player of the Tournament, a higher accolade than the Player of the Match in the final, and we have a better image of her than we do of Carmona (though I have to say it's still not brilliant!). Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support article is more than ready. What are we waiting for? _-_Alsor (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An admin to post it, probably ;). You could always hit em’ with the good old Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted without an image. A consensus to post the image has not materialised yet. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Warnock

 * Comment Should be a blurb. John Warnock is a very influential figure (considering he co-founded Adobe) and his death is being covered heavily in news. Article looks good as well, although death section could use some expanding. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This will not be a blurb. His product is influential, not him. Focus on finding sources to get this up to quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose with several unsourced statements, but its not too far off. --M asem (t) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now Suppourt with improvements --M asem (t) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per  as Warnock made quite a difference, garnered many major awards and left a significant legacy, devising the Warnock algorithm and being the prime mover for the PDF format, for example.  They are recognised as WP:VITAL but were not a household name and so just putting the name alone in RD is meaningless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. M asem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the interminable arguments have settled nothing and so blurbing is still done on a "sui generis" basis. So, anything goes and if editors wish to respect the prior work and judgement of WikiProject Vital Articles then they may do so.  Assertions that the other project is haphazard are just a case of WP:POT.  See also not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD due to multiple unsourced statements. Strong oppose blurb - here we go again. Can’t wait for this discussion to get wildly off-topic from the page quality which should be the only concern. The Kip (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment/Support I've done significant sourcing work on the article; there's only one unsourced statement/cn tag left. It can be removed if worst comes to worst. I believe the quality is now sufficient for RD. I'll let other editors decide on blurb. Oh and  feel free to reevaluate quality. Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I sourced that one cn with no trouble. Ready for RD. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support absolutely. The invention of PostScript is arguably as important as the World Wide Web. RIP Dr. Warnock. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quality looks acceptable. Good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gloria Coates

 * Comments: Gloria_Coates needs refs.  Spencer T• C 06:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the IP for the nomination that I came to make. As for the works: they are referenced to an offline source, and we can do two things: believe that source, or create an extra works list, leaving only the recorded ones which would still be more symphonies than Beethoven ever wrote. All recorded works are referenced by Muziekweb summarily (listed by alphabet, but can be sorted for other criteria), some have now extra reviews. I'd love to add more reviews, and extract information from them, but not today, and time is running out. - I believe she's worth pointing to as it is. The article was one of the strangest I've seen: detailed musical analysis, no bio. I added to bio, and trimmed the analysis, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have any more information about the offline source? I just see an author and editor, but no title, publication date, or other information. If we had that, I'm willing to AGF. Gloria_Coates would need additional references.  Spencer T• C 05:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Spencer, I found it, relief! Even online. It's in German, I checked structure and samples, and it looks fine to me, please check. I commented out the articles, - they seem to be small stuff from the 1970s, not defining her work, - I have no time for that right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With almost 800 words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Apart from quotes, Earwig has nothing to complain about. Footnotes can be found where they are expected, and their deployments are AGF'd (I know no German, except Entschuldigung.) This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (Disclosure: GA asked me to look at the article and this discussion) The article is on the shorter end but, even not counting the quotations, I believe there's enough content for it to qualify. The references provided appear to be equally sufficient. I did make one minor change to phrasing to better emphasize her prolific composing, so perhaps look at that with a critical eye to ensure I didn't alter the meaning. I say good to go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxie Baughan

 * I've significantly improved the article - it should be ready now in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ron Cephas Jones

 * Oppose Major sourcing work needed. Some uncited statements in career, while the filmography section and awards and nominations section are almost entirely uncited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above basically. More work needs to be done.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing, blurb discussion continues) Canadian wildfires

 * Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --M asem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on, drop the stick. That article sucks, just like 2022 heat waves and 2021 heat waves. Always have and always will. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And now we have 2018 heat waves, which is worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing It's clearly extremely bad and should be featured while notable events are taking place. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
 * 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing - Regardless of whether it's making news in other parts of the globe in Germany or New Zealand or Djibouti, the worst wildfire season on record in Canada and North America in my opinion counts for something. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing Seems to be worsening and has been ongoing for well over 6 months. Has also had pretty devastating results internationally. TwistedAxe   [contact]  18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing would be appropriate. The 2023 season is far and away the worst in Canadian history, having burned through triple the hectacres of 2021 (the previous record holder), according to BBC News. There are also significant fires impacting parts of the United States, so an upmerge may be appropriate at some point.  Sounder Bruce  18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing - maybe would be best to have it under "North American Wildfires", since the impact crosses national boundaries. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no article for 2023 North American wildfires. The US wildfires are broken down by state and one of them is already being blurbed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing&mdash;I agree that we should refer to them as the North American wildfires rather than singling out Canada, as the US has been affected as well. Kurtis (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing for Canada only. There are ongoing wildfires in many parts of the world (those in Greece are still severe and receive media coverage), so extending this to North America makes a strong argument to go even beyond it, but we cannot go thus far and post “Global wildfires”. Canada seems to be the hot spot these days, and that’s what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is summer in the northern hemisphere. Climate change. Wildfires are commonplace, as are evacuations and emergency declarations. In Tenerife there are 26,000 evacuees, and the figure may rise. The situation was very serious in Rhodes, as it is and can be throughout the Mediterranean and North America (as it usually is in California and Canada) all this season. Why this exception? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Canada has the 3rd most hectares burned in a country in a year (2019-20 Australia is #1) and might even beat it since it has 13 to 15+ million hectares now and the year ends New Years Day. It usually isn't serious in Canada, it's already 3 times their highest hectares in a year. California got soaked by a Noachian rainstorm this spring, this year isn't as bad as the one with the city destroyer or the one with a fire bigger than the combined size of the 7 smallest European countries (Lux to Pope) plus half of New York City. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing: This has been widely covered internationally and seems genuinely unprecedented, particularly the evacuation of a provincial capital. "Other stuff isn't listed" is an argument for listing those other things - not for not listing this one.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yellowknife is a territorial capital, not provincial, and the Northwest Territories is one territory. This doesn't make it less unprecedented and probably doesn't matter to most people. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing since it's an ongoing problem; evacuating 20K people from Yellowknife also deserves a mention. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 14:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer it to be blurbed, instead of directly putting it into ongoing. Not sure what the argument is to hide it in the ongoing bar without first blurbing it. Given the slowness of the current news cycle, it's bound to stay blurbed for quite some time anyway. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was the target and the fires the cause of this blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I see now why people preferred it to be posted directly on ongoing! Tx. Khuft (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb+Ongoing Similar rationale as Khuft. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing: Article is consistently being updated, and still appears fairly often in the news ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing per the strong consensus above. Most people supported ongoing without mentioning their thoughts on blurbing it, so that discussion should continue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can they be listed as "North American wildfires"? Not a big deal either way, but "Canadian" implies that it's only Canada's problem. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The ones in that target article basically are. We appreciate the help from other countries and have already apologized for helping turn New York orange. But most disasters have spillover, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that would require a page move, question mark for hesitancy? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that being discussed above, but there was no consensus and it doesn't seem appropriate to list that as such in ITN without a pagemove. There was consensus to merge several North American wildfire-related articles back in June, and the article includes a section on international effects. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support as Ongoing. This is a valid situation where it's worth posting directly to Ongoing. A sustained story that would probably not be blurbed in it's current state, but is worth featuring somewhere by ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support as Ongoing - Definitely for Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howard S. Becker

 * Weak support This has enough details & references. However, the book references don’t have page numbers, which would be more helpful. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Balltze

 * Support Article is in pretty good shape. ❤History  Theorist❤  02:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like dogs on the internet but my spider-sense starts tingling when I see mention of cryptocurrency. The sources look unconvincing and don't seem to be the quality of links that I want to start clicking on. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate reference coverage, widely known.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing seems fine. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kyle Turner (rugby league)

 * Comment I added 4 cn tags. Also, is there any info about his cause of death? Dying at 31 is unusual. Support Everything is referenced now & there are enough details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is now sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alex Cole

 * Oppose. Still needing serious addition of citations and lengthening out. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Quie

 * Weak Support The article looks like it's in good shape, but I don't know if his electoral history needs more citations. I'll try to add more myself, and once it gets cited, I'll change my support. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, article looks good and while the electoral history could use more refs, it is uncontroversial and shouldn't hold up posting. Also, what are the chances that the oldest living governor and the oldest living U.S. senator died on the same day? Davey2116 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I sourced up the electoral history. Marking it ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cave Rock (horse)

 * Posted Stephen 02:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lolita (orca)

 * Support Great article with lots of sources. TwistedAxe   [contact]  18:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Article has lots of sourcing and length. Looks good enough for ITNRD, support. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks pretty good. Plus, I'm from the Pacific Northwest were orcas mean a lot to us. ❤History  Theorist❤  20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - should be posted as soon as possible, in my opinion. Definitely ready. Even made the top headlines on the BBC! -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Rockstone. History6042 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Hilary

 * Oppose The watches are not important in the grand scheme even if historic. Wait for the effects to be felt and then we can revisit this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Noah. At the moment this is trivia. If there are major impacts we can revisit. And can we please not re-nom this if the impacts are just minor? Simply because a TS [likely to be a TS by then] hits somewhere where it is rare doesn't mean it should be in ITN. Again, that is trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not merely "trivia" that Southern California has its first ever TS warning. It's climate change. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it’s an El Niño year in which the Pacific high pressure is pushed further north than usual. Additionally, this storm is taking the only possible path to hit California. If it were further west, it would die over cold water. if it were further East, mountains would shred it. There is no certainty it will even be a tropical storm at landfall either because the NHC has a track record of being biased in the EPAC for weakening storms as a result of models failing to weaken the storms fast enough. It has happened time and time again. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not trivia if you live in California, yeah. But this feels like the Cyclone Gabrielle thing, where we nearly went and blurbed the story because it was the first time a national state of emergency was issued - a fact so important that...it isn't even mentioned in the article. Hypothetically speaking, do you really consider this event ITN worthy if, say, the cyclone rapidly deteriorates and produces only minor impacts along its path, or it's path changes and its impacts likewise do not end up being severe? California has had severe weather before - that it is accompanied by a TS warning has fairly little boarder importance. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not really interesting outside North America. The 2023 South America heat wave, 2023 European heat waves, and 2023 Asia heat wave articles are much better candidates if you want to illustrate rare or unprecedented severe weather closely tied to climate change.
 * All three could use improvements too. For instance, the Europe article still says nothing about the current unprecedented Mediterrannean Sea marine heat wave which brought sea temperatures to levels that usually create hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, nor record overnight lows resulting from these sea temperatures. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 15:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mediterranean hurricanes would have to far enough from the summer dry season to storm but not so far that the water cools down too much. The first one will probably occur within my lifetime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Medicanes have been happening already, FWIW. Yes their tropical characteristics are disputed, but several have been hurricane strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I was meaning more clearly tropical cyclones though the NHC's authority doesn't include the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic, unless it's changed since I last saw the world map (JMA (Tokyo) is the one that says yes or no in this zone, PAGASA (Philippines) is secondary in its subset of E. Pac, NHC (Miami) is the one in these borders and so on) there's no official agency there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Mediterrannean basin is relatively small and fragmented, and its coastline is dominated by mountains, so storm damage is usually caused by rainfall, rather than winds or storm surges. Whether the storms exhibit tropical characteristics and hurricane-force winds is more of a scientific curiosity. Intense storms are named by official agencies (see European windstorm), although not all countries get strong, large and lasting storm systems often enough to take interest in the names.
 * I mainly mentioned hurricanes to emphasise how hot the Mediterrannean was in July and early August, considering how much farther poleward it is than the region where Atlantic hurricanes usually form. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 23:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, renominate if something happens While it is sort of historic that we're seeing a hurricane this side of the Pacific, I would wait until the storm actually touches land. Storm alerts are one thing, but the damage done will determine whether I support this storm being posted. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until impacts are known, currently, impacts are almost non-existent and will be minimal for the next few days. Until impacts are known (likely after a landfall), I'm currently opposing. If the impacts are notable enough, I'll change to support it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the first blurb suggests that this is the first tropical storm watch to be issued in Southern CA, it isn't, and it isn't the first tropical storm to affect the area. The first occurrence of such events was from Hurricane Nora in 1997. I'm not sure if I'm not noticing something in blurb 1, but that's what I noticed. Mobius Gerig (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As the editor who rewrote Nora earlier in the year, I can confirm that no tropical storm watches or warnings were issued for California or Arizona because of Nora, just your normal day-to-day watches/warnings. From what im told by a well placed Wikipedian inside the NWS, its because of the computer systems in operation back in the day. That being said I am also going to state that we should wait until the system makes landfall and we have a better grip on the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s the first tropical storm watch issued by the NHC. That’s it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 02:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There seem to have been a fair number of them. —Cryptic 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look again, it’s almost solely the remnants of a storm rather than a tropical storm or hurricane hitting directly. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no way we can say that a storm "churns" in Wikipedia voice. (The altblurb.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant for now. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not everything that happens in La La Land is inherently newsworthy. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait No impacts are known for now. The Kip (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait/oppose Nothing with actual broader implications has happened yet, so not notable enough to be posted. Wait until further developments. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Per above. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Don't need to post stories that haven't gone anywhere yet. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for further development. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per Noah and DarkSide830. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Catastrophic flash flooding all but certain given the terrain and the expected amounts of rainfall. Count Iblis (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Reaffirming my oppose post-dissipation since the impacts are not severe enough to warrant posting at 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, AATalk 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose impacts associated with Hilary isn't going to cut it for ITN. Impacts aren't notable enough, I'm looking at flooding, road closures, and 4 fatalities, 3 of them indirect, and that ain't notable for an ITN post. And, Hilary didn't make landfall in southern California so only the watches issued were historic. Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It entered California but possibly only from Mexico which wouldn't be a landfall. Possibly the center briefly entered California state waters (cause of the curve of the beach) and came back which would be a landfall. Seems pedantic to me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm from the Los Angeles metro area, and although this storm did wreak some havoc namely flooding, fallen trees, washed out roads, I feel that is not enough to warrant inclusion. And I actually decided to wait a day or two to post my decision to assess the impact. Oh, and I'm one that previously supported putting the 2023 Monterey Park shooting on ITN so I'm not those "Oh, that's just US-centric news" fallacy folks.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close Impacts were (thankfully) less than expected despite record rain. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonder what it would've been like slightly west so it shredded much later and the rainiest strip was over Diego or LA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled) Lucy Letby conviction

 * Support Article needs some minor work (Inquiry section needs expansion), but once its up to ITN standards this seems notable and worthy of a blurb (perhaps some alt. blurbs could be proposed, not a huge fan of the current). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I question the need for the tag on the inquiry section, it'd work fine as a few sentences in another section, so that seems like a minor detail that doesn't need to hold this up. Quality is fine otherwise, and the story is being widely covered in the news.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Has this made the news outside of the UK? Secretlondon (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page.  This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this.  Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did.  If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bro, can you chill? condescending question; they LITERALLY just asked a nine word question and you're getting this upset? Yeah, I wonder why ITN has a bad rep, when we act with such exquisite respect and understanding to newbies (and yes, in this context, they are a newbie; despite being on this site since 2003, they've only made a combined total of eight edits on INT/C)? Again, nine words from a non-regular set you off and led to you as an admin making WP:BITEy, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs, and WP:ASPERSIONS on, who again, has only made eight edits here. Utterly fucking ridiculous, and immensely disappointing behavior from an admin I typically respect. —  Knightof  theswords  03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Additionally, yes, as someone who created the shortcut links for those very guidelines I think ITN stories shouldn't be decided via geographic location, and SL is somewhat wrong for doing that... but bro, let's be real frank here, where do you believe that they got that conception from? Do not throw stones in a glass house. It's no surprise that newcomers will come onto ITN not believing in the de jure rule that ITN noms aren't dependant on a story's location when in practice, regulars regularly (ha) reject stories on the basis of location all the time. It's apart of the ITN canon, and for us to bathe in this behavior when we're isolated in our small echo-chamber but then go apeshit when a monkey does what he sees is absurd and duplicitous. In fact to add on to this, tying back into those shortcut links, I also created WP:ITNUSA, specifically because this is disproportionately done to U.S based stories. Tying back to SL's comment above, I think that asking for global significance is an understandable concern given the literal years worth of editors (many, if not a majority of which are from the UK) habitually opposing stories from the US with the sole rationale of "it occured in America." Yeah, American mass shootings are also reported globally, yet they rarely get posted in 5 hours.
 * Overall, this behavior of dunking on newbies on ITN needs to fucking stop. It's funny going back a decade plus in ITN's history and see that like at least 60% of the people present here then are still active on ITN now (which ties into a point I've been thinking about regarding Wikipedia gerontocracy but that's for another time), and behavior like this, as well as frequently attempting to shift blame for ITN's structural ills off regulars to newbies, is definitely a major contributor. We as regularls cannot make our bed and then get pissed when we're confronted with the reality that we actually have to lie in it. ITN's issues was caused by regulars, and comments like yours are a prime example of the issue wrong. — Knightof  theswords  03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Cool story, bro! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article is sourced. Case has received attention for a long time, also internationally.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support This certainly meets criteria for being significantly covered in the news.
 * That being said, I am not at all familiar with this case (and its significance), but it being concerned with the deaths of infants seems to make it unusual, and thus notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well-cited and has received significant coverage in the UK, and has seen coverage in various different countries. Tragically, it is the worst case involving babies in the UK in modern times. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As Jayron32 said, I'm seeing it in my country's (US) news too. Below the fold, but there's nothing above the fold that we'd consider posting.The UK news sites I've looked at have it pretty low, too.  Which is unsurprising, since they can geolocate me.  But it means I have to ask the British editors here instead of checking for myself - is this a top headline for you folks?  Has it been generating sustained coverage throughout the trial and leading up to it?  If you could, say, blurb one UK-based news story this week, would this be it?  I'll take you at your word on importance here.  (The article seemed ok to me quality-wise.) —Cryptic 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you. For reference, I'd looked at the BBC and Guardian sites - BBC links this near the top, which I'd overlooked since the main story is four pages down; and it's also a page and a half down on the Guardian's main site for US viewers.  Telegraph, which I didn't think to check, shows it as the top story despite redirecting me to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/ even after I click on "UK edition".  Sky News (which I was only vaguely even aware of) is showing me what I assume is the same thing as it does to UK viewers; it's the top four stories there.  I wish more international news sites did the same. —Cryptic 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article seems far too focused on the trial and not so much about the crimes, reaction to the crimes, or other similar factors related to the public perception of the crimes. In other words, I can't see why this is a major deal within the UK from the state of our article. --M asem (t) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --M asem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 50% of the article is about the day-to-day events of the trial - which is actually excessive detail that we usually don't cover on other trial articles. Going beyond the trial coverage, the article is very thin to explain why this is such a critical case within the UK. Yes, it touches on what you're talking about but I would think there should be more of why this was a landmark judgement within the UK. Sure, one could argue that the virtue of a nurse killing babies should be obvious to why it is bad, but that should be really discussed more from third parties, while purging down the trial coverage. M asem  (t) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic, but yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage. I don't think it's the most remarkable sentence we can include in Main Page so far this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a huge news story in the UK, that has been in the news for some considerable time, and is currently top story on all major UK news media. It's also significant not only because of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, but also the extensive use of circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction. Letby's apparently innocent-looking appearance, in contrast to the crimes she's just been convicted of, has also been a big factor in the notoriety of the case. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article well cited and it's making headlines. Also (at least I think) this not a common event and per The Anome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This now makes Letby the most prolific child killer in UK history and ranks alongside the likes of Harold Shipman, for medical professionals who murder. This is an historic conviction and is far more than "yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage." As can be seen by reporting in the United States today United stated 10 months ago India New Zealand 9 months ago Nigeria. There is also now an independent government inquiry launched. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Added alt1. —Cryptic 19:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted alt1.  Schwede 66  21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've not followed this closely but watched the BBC coverage in the main evening news and there were some remarkable features. There seem to have been significant institutional failures and these will be the subject of further inquiry.  And this was said to be the longest murder trial in British history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Exceptional case, widespread coverage, article is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Which is why I posted it half an hour before you expressed your support. :-)  Schwede 66  22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a for-the-record-post-posting-support :) I'm hoping there won't be a flurry of post-posting opposes but you never know... Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Maybe you should mark contributions like that as "Post-posting support" for clarity.  Schwede 66  00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges comparison. The Queen was a reigning monarch who happened to be the longest-serving in the United Kingdom's history and who was globally recognized. This is not the same situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong post-posting oppose - Every support !vote I've seen has been most prolific child killer in UK history, huge news story in the UK, has received significant coverage in the UK, etc. Personally, I believe ITN blurbs should have some sort of long-term significance. I just don't see this achieving that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong post-posting oppose & pull. Seriously? I mean, this might be big news in the UK, but this is absolutely by no means significant at all. Yeah, absolutely an interesting criminal case to read up on, but how is this exactly long-lasting and even barely ITN-worthy? Holds zero significance whatsoever outside of the UK. US-centrism is a big no-no for ITN, but so is UK-centrism and other types of news that merely have national significance in one country. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose I don't see how this story has sufficient scope. Certainly I don't see how it's of greater societal consequence than the suicide bombings and mass shootings that we frequently don't post. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Request [at least] temporary pull. Discussion lasted for less then 5 hours, with many of the supports saying "notable in the UK', which really does seem to suggest this is only locally notable, and while, yes, scope is not a valid reason to oppose alone, the question remains as to if there will be any longer-term impact to this ruling, for which the answer is likely no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment To counter the "too-parochial" comments above, this in the news here in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Temporary pull per Darkside. I’m undecided on it myself, but five hours feels extremely rushed for a blurb with not-overwhelming support. The Kip (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say the support was fairly overwhelming, but given we don't post by a vote, the point is moot in the end. Ideally we need more discussion of why this rises beyond the level of a human-interest story (with respect being given to the families of the victims here, obviously, but the obvious point here is we don't just post every tragedy in which 7 are killed, nor does the media proportionally cover such events). The idea that we would post a conviction of a murderer of seven but would ignore an explosion killing 35 simply because one is more frequently covered feels inherently biased. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per the unusualness of this news update and the resulting global headlines. I don't mind the quick posting, as that's within admin discretion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't even !vote in this story when I saw it, partially because when I saw the wave of support votes and it being marked as ready after only a few hours, I was aware of the shitshow that was soon to barrel through. All I ought to say is that this is what occurs when we selectively apply ITN's guideline about not opposing based off national origin to post stories from certain countries and then ignore it when we get to put stories from another down. I honestly am not to opposed to posting this in general, however, let's keep it a buck '50, we all know that it's cope to believe that this would have still been posted, at least in this manner, had the story been from the U.S, or frankly maybe any bedsides the UK. — Knightof  theswords  03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Not sure we'd post this if it were happening anywhere other than the UK, honestly. ITN has a very bad UK bias. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - as sad as this is, this really is just a criminal case. A much more complex crime than the average british one, but I don't really see why this should be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull and Oppose – Unlike Elizabeth II's death, or Trump's conviction for that matter, this one is mostly irrelevant outside UK/US, given main sequence of events predate the growth of Internet in countries like India, and thus people outside in such countries, especially outside Europe, don't know and don't care. I'm from Indonesia and I'm being serious here. I know the conviction is the biggest news in UK right now, but we shouldn't bring this up to ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite my !vote, I think it is right for this to be temporarily pulled due to other editors concerns since posting. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled for now due to popular demand. May the discussion continue.  Schwede 66  06:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose tabloid news, no long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer.  So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "May" is not "guaranteed to". 2603:8001:4542:28FB:2CCD:29ED:DB69:E997 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Restore/oppose pull as significant news for the region with international coverage This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support an exceptional, unusual case of highly notable and significant news; if a case like this were to occur in another country which has low child serial killer death rates (such as the US) it probably should be posted, definitely not just tabloid news. Happily888 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Stats Letby was #8 in the top read for yesterday and the competition was not ITN's selection but the current crop of summer movies. The only ITN blurb that's getting significant readership currently is the 2023 Hawaii wildfires.  |Michael_Parkinson|Battle_of_Geneina|2023_Hawaii_wildfires|Assassination_of_Fernando_Villavicencio|2023_Hazara_Express_derailment|Yellowknife The other blurbs are getting almost no readers at all.  Nobody is interested in a derailment that happened two weeks ago.
 * What's driving this readership is that Letby is in the news . She's dominating the front pages today, just as Michael Parkinson did yesterday.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * as we have mentioned multiple times, ITN is not driven by page views or popularity. We don't care what gets the most attention or lack thereof. M asem (t) 12:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly: we do not care. You should know by now that ITN isn’t driven by page views. The Kip (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There might have eventually been a firm consensus to post this if more time were allowed beyond 5 hours to provide the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on this. As it is, now that it has been both posted and pulled and the footing of this nom has become muddled, it seems almost a guarantee that this discussion will ultimately close as no consensus. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-removal support So, for some reason, we are to suppose a train derailment that kills 30 people in Pakistan is of global interest rather than "just another train accident", but an unprecedented case of the mass-murder of children that has achieved global attention, dominates the UK news, and raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases, and has led to the setting up of a major government enquiry to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again, is in 's words merely "tragic, but yet another criminal case"? The entire point of ITN is to point readers to articles about things which are in the news -- and this is not just top of the UK news, it's very much in the news globally: see, , , , , , , and many more. I suggest this be added to ITN as soon as possible. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. M asem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixing that now. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The people who opposed this also opposed the Pakistan derailment. In fact both of them are exceedingly similar cases of an admin posting something fast after seemingly unanimous support and then people who disagree with it !voting later, though this time it actually received enough !votes to be pulled. I think it might be worth opening a discussion on the talk page on how to post stories in a timely manner while still retaining article quality and significance standards. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think that individual crime stories will always struggle to meet the standard needed for posting here in the absence of some wider political connection or notable societal response - similar to our policy on US mass shootings. Aside from the redundant "it has lots of press coverage" arguments, I cannot see anything here to explain why this meets the notability threshold. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Copying and pasting a load of news links from foreign sources means nothing, the number 2 news story on the BBC website this morning was the government of Italy paying for a dine and dash by its citizens on an Albanian holiday, and nobody in their right mind would think "this news story is even top on the BBC, it's got to be on Wikipedia's ITN". In this day and age, it is easy for news websites to save money by including stories that fully rely on another website's sources. What are actual newspapers printing in foreign countries? It's not on any front pages in countries geographically  or culturally  close to the UK. Even in Ireland  it's only on the front page of the Irish Daily Mail, a stablemate of the notorious British tabloid, and the inside coverage starts from page 22. Let's be honest, we would not even consider posting this story if it happened in Slovenia, let alone France or Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all above. Tragic, albeit local crime is bad and the perpetrator is caught. Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ultimately decided to formally vote on this. I second a lot of the votes above; while I understand opposition on “we would/wouldn’t post in x country” isn’t the strongest argument, this does truly seem like the more locally-relevant type of criminal case that we likely wouldn’t nominate/post if a large percentage of users here weren’t UK-based (ex. I believe there’d be strong opposition to posting the conviction of Rex Heuermann here). Not sure if it’ll have wide-enough long-term significance either. The Kip (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support/Restore All of the no votes above me which just say that it's only relevant to the UK shouldn't be be counted. ITN has always said that arguments based on an item only appealing to one area are not useful. This comes up on every time so maybe we need to paste WP:ITNATA to the front of the ITN section and make everyone read it before they post. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, an admin should re-post this because all the oppose !votes seem to only be arguing UK-centrism and that this blurb is only from a particular region/country/group, which is against WP:ITNATA. Its also the same users who have previously opposed blurbs just because they are or aren't from particular countries, or that they are or aren't 'front-page' news in their own country, both of which are irrelevant and which don't carry any weight in weighing up consensus. Clearly this case is significant and notable internationally in regards to the rare cases of child serial killers in modern/recent times in 'wealthy' countries and is highly likely that inquiries, per the news reports, will lead to changes. Happily888 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if an admin re-posts this now, they'll definitely be going against consensus. The concern is that ITN treats stories from certain places as being more important than other places. I don't see anything indicating that this isn't a legitimate concern. That is only relates to one place is not a reason to post, but that it has no long-term significance is. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't going against consensus if its posted, because admins don't count !votes to assess consensus but rather look at the arguments made by discussers, the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place is not relevant or an appropriate argument for opposing in an ITN discussion, and so those !votes are annulled. Rather, the significance of this case is already clear and has already been made clear above; also, stories are posted based on significance, not necessarily long-term significance which is hard to determine in a short period of time in regards to ITN – if all stories had to have long-term significance blurbs about sports events and political changes of power should not be posted. Happily888 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding "the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place". A good faith reading of the points about makes it clear that no-one is arguing that stories in the UK cannot be significant.
 * Aside from its sheer nastiness, the argument in favour of significance here seems to be because it is about the "most babies murdered in modern British history". The counterargument is that the significance comes not from the actual event itself but from this perverse "record". Would "most babies murdered in modern Brazilian history", say, be considered similarly significant? I personally doubt it and, while obviously speculative, I don't think it's an unreasonable argument because the significance is drawn from its connection to the country. Substitute Brazil in my example for, say, a "less significant" country like Andorra and you will see what I mean.
 * In my view, we have too many stories of all kinds in ITN about the "first Fooian X to do Y" or "most X in Fooian history" which sets an artificial and rather deceptive standard of significance purely because it is defined in local terms. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Stats Despite being pulled, the readership for the article has gone up so that it's now #3 in the top read list. And it continues to make the ITN blurbs look weak.  That's because this topic is in the news, while those topics are mostly less so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support posting While ITN’s UK-centric bias can be a problem, this is being covered internationally (I’m seeing plenty of coverage in the US). Also, Letby murdered babies, which makes her different from most serial killers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-removal weak oppose While I understand that this disturbing and tragic case has received considerable media attention, I worry that focusing on individual criminal cases could lead to sensationalism overshadowing more substantial news events with lasting implications. Mooonswimmer 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Both this situation and the posting of the 2023 Hazara Express derailment does bring an interesting question about posting speed. Both this and the 2023 Hazara Express derailment were posted quickly with seemingly unanimous support, only to be afterwards hit with a flurry of post-posting opposes and in this case also being pulled. It might be worthwhile discussing how to balance posting blurbs in a timely manner while still attaining consensus on article quality and significance. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pulling / oppose restoring a tragic story, now it's over.  SN54129  12:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore Her sentence was announced today and the story is in the headlines (again). Most of the opposes fail to adhere to the rules of WP:ITNATA. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore - worldwide news, with even her declining to appear at sentencing making headlines around the world. A country's most prolific child killer is convicted and sentenced, and it is covered around the world, how does that not merit posting here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore' Article in good shape, sentence was announced today, this is not that common event and this news is receiving worldwide coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James L. Buckley

 * Support - Ready to go. Fully sourced. Sources are correct. Overall good.BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: John Devitt

 * A wikibio with almost 1200 words of prose but only 10 footnotes. Multiple paragraphs have zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kunwar Naveed Jamil

 * The stubby wikibio currently has only 220 words of prose. Anything more to write about? What did he do for 5 years as Mayor of Hyderabad? What did he do in his other elected offices? --PFHLai (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karol J. Bobko

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements, hopefully will receive attention in time. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Has good sourcing. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Young (drummer)

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rick Jeanneret

 * About 10 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John L. Carroll

 * Support Article quality is sufficient enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 0 CN tags though someone should do a spotcheck. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go. Sources checks.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Re-posted) RD: Nami Sano

 * Support Well-referenced and just long enough. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a stub, but my experience in manga biographies has me expect that this is pretty much all there is to say about a (tragically) young manga artist, even one nominated for a significant award, so it's as comprehensive as I expect for the subject area. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought we did not post stubs, ? I shall remove the listing with my next edit; please revert if I've got that wrong.  Schwede 66  23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and WP:ITNQUALITY says: Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page.  Schwede 66  23:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a case of the articles Start-status having not been updated. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks Start class to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article to Start class. It can now be posted again.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It is the case of the article having been expanded since I posted my comment above. I agree that it is now start class and I shall repost it., please note that when you upgrade an article from stub to start on the talk page, you should simultaneously remove any stub tags from the article itself. I will do that for you.  Schwede 66  00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Are there any details that can be added about her art background (i.e. art college or apprenticeship)? That would help buff this out. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like this? This wikibio now has 304 words of prose, per DYK check. Good enough? -- PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly like that! Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for the suggestion. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Canadian wildfires -- Yellowknife evacuation order

 * Oppose for now. A precautionary evacuation is not typically ITN material. Hopefully we will not have cause to revisit this subject due to it becoming something more serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Evacuations are common in association with natural disasters (and unnatural ones) all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, not even close to ITN material at the moment. The Kip (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only an evacuation right now, for a relatively small city (20,000 people). Johndavies837 (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing The nomination was closed without much discussion but it's not a good look to be shutting down discussion of wildfires in Canada when we're running a similar story about the US. The proposed blurb focussed on the capital of Yellowknife but it seems that there are currently hundreds of major fires in the Northwest Territories.  This adds to the many major fires earlier in the year and so the general topic is 2023 Canadian wildfires.  Perhaps this should be in Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. M asem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wildfires seem to be driven more by drought than by heat. Heat with humidity is a big deal too but it's different. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hot droughts tinderize plants faster than cold. Consider how only 23 inches a year gave damp forests to London, England while 23 inches in a year would dry out and probably kill equatorial forests even if evenly distributed. The droughts are unnaturally bad for the same reason as the heat anyway (fossil fuels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it were somewhere like Ottawa or Toronto, I'd certainly consider. But a relatively (at least internationally) obscure city evacuation seems mundane as they happen all the time as standard during wildfires.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories and the second-largest city in the Canadian north. I am floored that they're evacuating the capital as I'm not sure how the territorial government is supposed to function without the capital.  I'm leaving my vote neutral for now, but I can't think of another more important city to have been evacuated due to a wildfire during my lifetime. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality WP:ITNCRIT not met for updated content.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable for now. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The wildfires may develop into something nasty like the 2023 Hawaii wildfires or it could be another run-of-the-mill wildfire. If the city gets destroyed and/or a ton of casualties result, then I'll support. Furthermore, the specific fire doesn't have its own article yet. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, pending any major developments like the ones HistoryTheorist mentions&mdash;which, for the record, I hope do not transpire. Kurtis (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close at least for now. Barring some dramatic development, consensus to post is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone.  But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting.  Why do we require there to be death and disaster?  Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that we "want to see a body count," it's that as it stands, this is a non-story. A large town/small city is evacuated due to potential threat, that isn't an infrequent occurrence and there's absolutely nothing at the moment to suggest it will have any significant present and/or long-term notability. Not everything is motivated by some bloodthirsty interpretation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not a non-story. Here's a selection of the international coverage:
 * Al Jazeera "Huge wildfire forces evacuation of Canada’s Northwest Territories capital"
 * BBC "Race to evacuate city as blaze approaches"
 * France24 "Canada's northernmost city ordered to evacuate as wildfires approach"
 * Guardian "Traffic clogs road out of town as residents race to evacuate"
 * Irish Times "Yellowknife in Canada evacuated as wildfire nears"
 * NY Times "As Wildfire Nears, Entire Canadian City Is Ordered to Evacuate"
 * South China Morning Post "Residents flee, airlifts begin as wildfire nears capital of Canada’s Northwest Territories"
 * Times of India "Military airlifts provide escape as wildfires sweep Canada's far north"
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 21:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important.
 * WP:ITNCRIT.
 * Let’s not let one editor overrule the clear consensus. The Kip (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Clearly a story, and one whose significance/impact/whatever is highlighted in many newspapers and channels, but we post on how many Supports a story gets around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Johaar Mosaval

 * Two {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Whittam

 * Weak support Could use a bit more source work, but acceptable. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one {cn} tag in the prose, but the Awards and honours section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the last tag and sourced the awards and honours section. Should be good to go. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The only real description of his research work is a 4-sentence long direct quote that IMO should be paraphrased/re-worded, and with additional expansion. Unfortunatley the timeline is pretty short for this, but given the otherwise thoroughness of the article, willing to weak support.  Spencer T• C 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Renata Scotto

 * Support The article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Michael Parkinson

 * Blurb The nomination doesn't make this clear but he was quite a major figure in UK media, comparable with Larry King or Barbara Walters, say. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither Larry King (In the news/Candidates/January 2021) nor Barbara Walters (In the news/Candidates/December 2022) were blurbs. —Cryptic 17:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Larry King was posted as a blurb but then pulled by a notorious admin – a typical ITN SNAFU. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Very famous in the UK, but retired and elderly, his death doesn’t seem notable enough to blurb. Article is good enough. 80.169.25.168 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I don’t expect this will be a popular view but Parkinson was the chat show host / interviewer in his country. He was the UK’s top chat show host for over 30+ years - his programme was ranked eighth in the BFI TV 100 in 2000, the highest lifestyle / light entertainment programme in the list and the only chat show there. He was most certainly the top of his field in the country, and knighted for services to broadcasting in 2008. His encounters with figures like Muhammed Ali and Billy Connolly became notable cultural threads in themselves - in UK public consciousness, those people are quite strongly linked with Parkinson and that speaks to his domination of his field. Apologies if this sounds condescending but I think an equivalent in American culture would be something like Carson and Cavett rolled into one. Letterman might even be the most accurate considering his career at the top lasting into the 21st century.

In the recent past, we’ve blurbed television figures who are incredibly well-known in their home country but are not A-list anywhere else (Betty White, who was chiefly known for supporting roles in sitcoms, for example). I think Parkinson, host of a long-running eponymous chat show considered the greatest of all time by the BFI, the revered top of his field in the UK, would justify one, or perhaps a Photo RD. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: One of the most influential chat show hosts in history. Article is in sufficiently good shape.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 11:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Barbara Walters was mentioned above, and her death was not blurbed. At that nomination, you opposed a blurb, with the rationale A notable journalist within the US but barely known in the rest of the world. Can you explain how Parkinson is different for you?—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Man, I love seeing blatant hypocrisy pointed out. Good show. Kicking222 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * She had a much smaller reach whereas Parkinson was able to get big international stars come over to him. No hypocrisy here and need I remind you of WP:NPA too please?  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Identifying a hypocritical statement is not a personal attack. Calling someone a hypocrite is. I'm not sure where "pointing out blatant hypocrisy" falls on that spectrum. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting how, when she died, Walters was the 2nd story on BBC News's site (https://web.archive.org/web/20221231090027/bbc.com/news) while Parkinson is currently the 6th story.
 * It's worth noting that I did not support Walters getting posted, either. Kicking222 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As Walters isn't known internationally, having only hosted and reported for American shows/news broadcasts. Parkinson's show was internationally broadcast and he also hosted international shows too. Happily888 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD article quality is good enough. no blurb material. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blurb The epitome of "old man dies". I have stated that a death should only be blurbed if it's the #1 story in international media, and this isn't even the #1 story in British media- not on BBC News, not in the Times or Evening Standard, not in the tabloids. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're looking, but it's the lead story on the BBC.co.uk news website and the second lead on The Times and Evening Standard websites. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, certainly. Very important figure in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough with the blurb suggestions. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD; oppose blurb. A fine broadcaster, but I'd like to see us make far more sparing use of blurbs for deaths than we have hitherto. Ham II (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. There is certainly a parallel with Barbara Walters and Betty White here. Parky has enough cultural impact that not only was he highly regarded as a talk show host, he also portrayed himself as a talk show host in Love Actually and The Damned United. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To add the the cultural impact, I'll point out that the British Film Institute consider he "helped pioneer the celebrity interview format, which few on UK TV have been so successful at since". Industry professionals voted his programme 8th in the list of 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, and they conclude that "His contribution to broadcasting remains incalculable: he revolutionised the chat show on UK television, giving it a depth and reach never accomplished before".(See here). When words like "pioneer", and "revolutionised" are being used by a respected industry body, the idea of a blurb needs to be taken seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD on quality - I’m seeing a lot of unsourced statements that I’ll add CN tags to momentarily. Oppose blurb - good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore? The Kip (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given we're all !voting based on loose guidelines and our own opinions, "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore" is just patronising: there's no need for it - you have your opinion, others have theirs, and there's no need for the snark. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I’ve become quite frustrated with the tidal wave of blurb noms for figures that do not rise to the level of one. It seems nearly any recent RD nom that was somewhat famous at somepoint in their lives has had someone come charging in arguing they’re blurb-worthy, setting off a discussion that turns wildly off topic and in turn ignoring the actual RD criteria in favor of “do I think this person is notable enough.” Virtually none of these have reached the (admittedly informal) “transformative figure” criteria, instead being nominated because “well, I liked them.” The Kip (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because people hold a different opinion doesn't mean they should be abused. Just to remind you of what WP:ITNRDBLURB actually says, it makes no claim as to a "transformative figure", but states "The death of major figures may merit a blurb" and that any posting is based on a consensus from the discussion. The definition of "major figure" varies as to what field in which they were active (and in terms of talk show hosts, Parkinson certainly reaches that level), and the opinion of each individual !voting here will always vary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I really "come charging in"? I have not contributed to ITN very much in the past - I think this is the first time I've ever nominated someone for a blurb. I was nervous about doing it because I expected pushback, but it's been ruder than I was expecting. My reasoning was not “well, I liked them." and I don't appreciate the suggestion. It's not nice to be made to feel unwelcome, like I'm the wrong kind of person to contribute to ITN. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You also weren't the one who nominated the blurb - that was Andrew, who has a bit of a history at ITNC and isn't exactly looked on favorably by some as a result. Apologies for anything that felt excessively hostile toward you. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew nominated Parkinson for RD I believe, it was me who proposed a blurb. No worries. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb was a popular talk-show host in the UK 30 years ago, so what? But feel free to post it in line with our proud tradition of blurbing random American/British actors/singers who nobody born after 1990 has heard of before the obituaries were published. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this has got downright unpleasant. Comments like "enough with the blurb suggestions" and "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore?" don't strike me as fair at all. I thought people were going to engage. In response to AryKun, he was a popular talk-show host in the UK much more recently than 30 years ago - Parkinson ended in 2007. I was also, incidentally, born well after 1990. I don't think that assumption about younger people rings true. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we would not even be considering blurbing a Filipino presenter who hosted a show for 30 years and invited Muhammad Ali over once if they were practically unknown outside the Philippines, even though the UK and the Philippines have comparable English-speaking populations. What’s happening here is people tired of blurb nominations for somewhat famous American and British entertainers when we don’t give this treatment to people from any other part of the world. Betty White was probably the dumbest blurb we’ve ever done, and it’s created a precedent that would lead to ITN being a 24/7 death ticker if we applied it uniformly across the globe. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Betty White blurb was an example of too many driveby !votes in favor just because she was famous and popular, which are neither metrics we use per WP:ITNATA. And I think editors here want people to think more about when we actually should blurb deaths when the death or impact of that death that significant. M asem (t) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is cited well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Being famous or well-recognized by awards is not sufficient for being a blurb RD, no apparent importance or transformative nature to television as a whole. Oppose RD with numerous CN tags. --M asem (t) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The CNs have been fixed so Support RD. --M asem (t) 03:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb on notability in the United Kingdom Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of blurb, while reading the comments here it seems Parkinson has some notability in his field, but his article doesn't show his impact on his field, no legacy section or anything that demonstrates he was transformative in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Any other entertainment-related nomination would get shut down immediately. Don't understand why obit blurbs for actors/singers/entertainers are so popular here (while literary figures or scientific figures, including Nobel Prize winners, get the "Never heard of her/him" treatment). While I understand from supporters here that he was a beloved figure in Britain, I'm not sure people outside Britain have ever heard of him - for me that would be key to assess notability. When Larry King died, he made the news in Germany and France at least; haven't come across any news related to Parkinson in DE or FR media so far. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as he hosted the most notable chat show in the UK and has appeared on television and film internationally, would also support RD posting whilst a blurb discussion is ongoing. Happily888 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OMD The update is ten words long, omitting consequence and cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And three of those words are numerals. Even if this should be posted, that's plainly insufficient to meet WP:ITNCRIT. —Cryptic 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they are substantial numerals. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not expect a significant update when only an RD is being considered, just that the death is mentioned and sourced, atop all other quality factors. Of course, obits that provide additional details not yet included can be used to expand the article but that's not always possible nor is expected. --M asem (t) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "OMD" means "Old Man Dies" and should not be construed as opposition or support for RD consideration. If you must ask, though, yes. I'm Strong Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Updates refer to more than just updates to death information, per WP:ITNRDBLURB the death doesn't necessarily have to be the main story when nominating a major figure. Happily888 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What else do you see happening in that article that's in any way related to this breaking news/developing story/whatever-this-is? Verb changes to past tense? Needed citations appearing to "get tweaked"? Timothy Cooper's comma?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" does, yeah, mean the article has to have significant updates about the death. Right now we have no usable update at all, since even those seven words and three substantial numerals are excluded by "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb".  If more can't be written without unnatural padding written solely to get a blurb, doomed to be removed from the article just as soon as it rolls off the main page, then the criteria are clear that we can't post this no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic 04:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading the guidelines here, but as we are unlikely to agree and this is partly the wrong venue to discuss the guidelines, I won't push the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate, two of those numerals and three of the words relay where and when he died, which this unwritten but easily predictable blurb never could. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Article well cited and was a notable figure in the UK, and to a lesser extent, Australia. However, despite this, I do not support the use of a blurb. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats FYI, Parkinson's article was already rated as vital. There were many readers yesterday, making it the #2 top read article, behind an Indian movie.   For comparison, note that most of existing blurbs are getting almost no readers.  For example, the 2023 Hazara Express derailment got just 1284 views which is derisory.  We keep running such news events long after they have fallen out of the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting RD, I see we have no consensus for a blurb. I suggest the discussion is closed. --Tone 08:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UEFA Super Cup result

 * Oppose We never post the results of super cups, these are relatively unimportant matches with little prestige. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Association football is one of the most well-represented sports on ITN. The super cup is not a major competition in association football, even the article for the super cup itself says in the lead "It is not recognised as one of UEFA's major competitions". We don’t need to post minor competitions, especially when it's association football. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The referenced clip from the trophy's article was corrected using the given source!!! It's not a major competition, it is a major trophy. 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How can it be a major trophy without being a major competition? Even hypothetically conceding that point, its recognition and prestige amongst fans is pretty low and the fact that association football has so many fans are what makes its competitions important. If this one isn’t as recognized as the other competitions we post, then it isn’t worth posting. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem with not posting. I have not been following football closely for many years now and, you're right, it's not really important even among football fans. Nxavar (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an important trophy, since it's a match between UEFA 2 major competitions winners. That being the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, the match has millions of people watching. 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:15FF:72F8:3C0B:C0F (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per S.A. Julio. The Kip (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gennady Zhidko

 * Support Article appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. The names of the publishers in the sources aren't in English though, feels like they were copied and pasted from the Russian wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Article looks good, this really seems good for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Geneina massacre
Nominator's comments: Just writing down here to clarify my decision, over 1,000 bodies were found in 30 mass graves in El Geneina, Sudan surpassing the level of deadliness we saw from the Bucha massacre last year and probably this centurie’s most deadly massacre yet confirmed.

Thank you. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:80E6:43D5:FCEF:63E9 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: If anyone would like edit the blurb or improve it be free to do so!
 * Weak oppose The article needs some work (2 cn tags, some bare URLs and some permanent dead links). Also the section in the article which covers this, is only two sentences. I'm sure it can be expanded further, maybe cover some reactions and more details about the discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by Ongoing. The battle itself is also stale. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The battle and the discovery of mass graves are two separate events, even if one was caused by the other. That being said, Support on principle, but article needs work first. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The discovery does not have its own article and is a relatively small update to the larger article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be reasonable to post if it was a major update to the article (we use similar logic when evaluating ongoing, just with an added time aspect). The trick is making that update happen. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Covered by Ongoing It's not much, but there are a few vague sentences in May, June and July about the clashes, hundreds of deaths and suspected killers themselves (also more mass grave discovery). I presume they were added between May and July. That would have been the "major" part of the ongoing story; finding the bodies is pretty clearly (to me) the epilogue/aftermath/tail end. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, a few vague sentences about massacres may have been mentioned in the article previously, but nothing about the massacres got posted to ITN as far as I can tell from searching the archive. To my mind, this is a pretty substantial update. Note that these are largely graves of civilians of one particular ethnic group, so this could be considered genocide/ethnic cleansing. Note that the only previous ITN posting about the 2023 Sudan conflict was this initial tidbit back in April (which gives no indication of mass war crimes against civilians):
 * Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attack several army camps in Sudan.
 * Now that we don't have vague statements but rather confirmed existence of mass graves attesting to a killing of such huge magnitude, I think it's definitely the right time to post this. I agree it's the epilogue/aftermath but better late than never, and it could even be argued to be the perfect time to post because we have specific information on the incident with solid confirmatory sources instead of vague statements. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing got posted because it was covered by Ongoing, same as now. When I said vague statements, I didn't mean incredible or dubious ones. The BBC, the UN, the victims themselves...all have been telling us that many thousands are being massacred in the last three months and covered up. I'm pretty sure there's some video evidence, but haven't looked for any. In news, late is never better. And even if we weren't late, it'd still best be covered in the already-posted article (it's just late again now). You're not going to sway me on this. But I don't blame you for trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality  Massacre section needs some expansion, but easily notable enough. The Kip (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Section's been expanded and sourced. I personally support ALT2 for the blurb. The Kip (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead proposed ALT3. The Kip (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support on notability. Yes, there's a related "Ongoing" item, but a horrific war crime of this scale definitely merits mention IMO. I agree the article could use some work before posting. Also, maybe the blurb could mention that the dead were largely civilians of Masalit ethnicity. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some tidying of the article and would suggest that article quality is sufficient for ITN. I shall leave it up to others to decide on notability.  Schwede 66  05:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support In addition to the thousands of civilians killed in the battle itself (this aspect is covered through ongoing, similar to the Siege of Mariupol), an additional at least 10,000 civilians (figure according to a local tribal leader ) were murdered in the subsequent massacre, when the RSF was literally killing any black person they saw. Absolutely blurb-worthy, though I feel like focusing on just the mass graves aspect may be understating it and would personally prefer a broader scope. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Sultan Saad Bahar al-Deen, he seems to me to mean 10,000 or more people were killed in West Darfur since violence erupted in April, not since the battle of Geneina ended (see preceding paragraph). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be correct on that, though the majority of that is concentrated in this city. I do still think that the way it is being covered demonstrates significance beyond the ongoing section; for example, this horrific CNN article was posted just yesterday. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly has been concentrated on the capital and CNN does have a history of pouncing on mass grave discoveries in places it normally underreports. This will likely happen the next time, too, considering the last. Remember, thousands more bodies are still unrecovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing how you might broaden the scope beyond the four current blurbs, though, might reconsider that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, on notability standards, article looks OK. Massive war crime. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;Ongoing exists to highlight highly publicized events that are developing over the course of several days or weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a substitute for blurbing something as significant as the massacre of thousands of people. Kurtis (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I just gave it a once over but there was very little left to be done, so well done, everyone. The subject's clearly notable, it seems up to date without touching WP:NOTNEWS and the MOS queries have been resolved.  SN54129  13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3, though I would change the wording to "around 1000" rather than "over 1000" as that matches what the source says here, stating "Civil leaders in West Darfur have uncovered 30 hidden mass graves containing roughly one thousand bodies" We need to be scrupulous on things like this.  Otherwise, Alt 3 is the best blurb, with that tweak.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted alt3.  Schwede 66  22:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a little concerned that this appears to be creating a neologism, particularly the way it is capitalised presents it as a proper noun phase rather than a purely descriptive term.  None of the sources I have sampled refer to this as the "Battle of Geneina".  It is not the place of this project to "name" battles nor implciitly define what subset of actions in a wider conflict constitute that battle (particularly when as here the "battle" is arguably more than one battle over a period).  I've no dispute with the substance of the story but its treatment is outright sloppy. 3142 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Marion County Record

 * Oppose She was 98. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also not a crime to receive a tip about someone else's conviction; the pertinent allegations here are identity theft and unlawful use of a computer, and it's typical to wait for a conviction (of private figures, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The stress of the police raiding her newspaper most likely killed her. <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 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, she wasn't notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Most likely" is OR  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OR doesnt apply outside the articlespace. I am not supporting the blurb but simply stating there is more to this than old woman dies. <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 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does however highlight that an opinion is not based on solid ground. I'd like to know how you calculated that likelihood, myself. Danthemankhan 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was literally on new channels. Given Im not supporting or opposing this, why is it a big deal? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's verging on accusing the cops of manslaughter or reckless endangerment; you should make like the news and attribute the claim to her son, in any potentially libelous space. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as their search was legal, then it’s simply an unfortunate occurrence that couldn’t have been foreseen if stress resulting from that raid did cause her death. Plain and simple. It’s up to the prosecutor and a jury to determine if criminal actions took place. Yes, her son was the one who made the claim. <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 23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, now you're verging on defending the unaccused. Not even sarcastic. That's legally safer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see how this will receive any lasting coverage or is of encyclopaedic value. This is barely in the news and is basically local news, yes it's receiving some coverage from outside the US but not anything major and even news sources from the US don’t seem to have this as a top story. Yes we don’t evaluate based on whether something is a top story, but if something isn’t even a top story in the country where it happened and it’s a story of this type(even more so in a country where people will scream systemic bias when people nominate events from it, though honestly if this gets posted it probably is bias) it probably isn’t notable enough. The death is tragic but it is what it is. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Effectively local news. The Kip (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good-faith nom, and this event has been surprisingly heavily covered by the news. But yes, lacking lasting impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith, but provincial. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Miroslav Krišan

 * Oppose as it's not ready. Needs heaps more references.  Schwede 66  06:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arnold Östman

 * Oppose as the two sections titled "Operatic recordings" are uncited.  Schwede 66  05:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ada Deer

 * Support Article quality is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 Women's European Volleyball Championship

 * Oppose At a minimum, it fails WP:ITNQUALITY as a stub with sourcing issues. Debatable if it meets WP:ONGOING's a story which is itself also frequently in the news.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the highest level tournament (this is the European edition) and the fact that it's a fairly niche sport suggests that it doesn't qualify for ongoing. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with your vote but no way Volleyball is a niche sport when we literally have netball on the front page? haha QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between posting the final result when the tournament concludes (which is fairly standard practice for tournaments at the highest level of most given sports) and posting a tournament when it is still running to ongoing (which for sporting events, would only happen with the Olympics and FIFA World Cups in practice) 2600:1700:38D0:2870:7000:65BC:FAA9:D2A6 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minus the tables, the article is little more than a stub. Not enough prose to qualify for ITN.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all, though where I went to high school, volleyball was the only recognized girls' team sport. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Baun

 * Oppose Article needs some ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mohammed Habib (footballer)

 * Weak Support the article is mostly well-cited, except for a couple awards ❤History  Theorist❤  16:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as too stubby.  Schwede 66  06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bindeshwar Pathak

 * Oppose for Now needs a bit of ref work before RD can be posted. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not (yet) main-page quality. Unbalanced between "what he did" and "the awards he got for doing it". Moscow Mule (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose - for now. Until improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahach Kala gas station explosion

 * Comment - "if this was like Congo or India", really? We're not here to reinforce the Euro-American bias, a tragedy doesn't become more or less tragic just because of where it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Same user that opposed a prior nom because, and I quote, “global warming’s fake imo,” bluntly WP:FRINGE. This user also has prior warnings for inappropriate behavior at ITNC, edit wars, and so on (including apparently using a slur in a prior nom).
 * I would strongly recommend they read and review ITNC do’s and dont’s before they continue to contribute in this manner, and I’m honestly somewhat convinced at the moment they’re WP:NOTHERE. If someone else proposes sanctions or the like, I'd be inclined to support as well. The Kip (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually meant it in the sense that other people wouldn't post it here because it happened outside of the usual first world/west/europe whatever, sort of like on this meme: https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tragedy-world-map.png
 * Like how i remember there's been numerous appearance of gas tank trucks exploding in africa or asia or latin america over the past like decade or so with far more deaths usually (often 100+ sometimes even 300+), and those were only rarely posted here
 * I definately did not mean to say it as if I personally think Africa or asia shouldn't be posted!!! Daikido (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * At the risk of severely derailing this whole nom, I am strongly opposed to any proposed sanctions; 's recent contributions to ITN have been fairly mundane; all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old and these incidents are often separated from each other by like half a year. The exception was the WP:FRINGE climate change denial, which while indefensible on an argumentative basis, is not grounds to levy sanctions against someone. Not to cast any WP:ASPERSIONS, but these accusations of WP:NOTHERE behavior and the like seems to stem from a disagreement on one editor's (admittedly wrong) belief regarding climate change, or in other words reeks of WP:DEADHORSE. Once you remove the global warming comment, nothing in Daikido's presence on ITN substantiates any sanctions. — Knightof  theswords  17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old
 * The use of a slur in a prior nom occurred last month. The section of the talk page is quite directly named "July 2023." Their oppose vote to blurbing a stabbing attack in Canada because such incidents are common in the US was also less than a year ago.
 * Anyhow, I'm striking my NOTHERE/sanctions comment and hatting these two so as not to derail things too badly. The Kip (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Agreement with Chaotic Enby and The Kip's comments aside, the article seems just good enough and I think it's notable ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support 115 casualties in an unusual explosion; though I'm not sure why the argument is being made that we wouldn't post if it was from Congo or India (the opposite is probably true). — Knightof  theswords  17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Knightoftheswords281 Where did you get 115 casualties from? When I was editing this articles all the RSes were saying 35. If it’s increased that much the article and blurb should definitely be updated. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 35 died and 80 were injured. Do the math. — Knightof  theswords  17:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought casualties only referred to deaths. Sorry. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Common mistake, no problem. — Knightof  theswords  19:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd probably post this in India, but in sub-Saharan Africa, there's a disturbingly common pattern of "fuel tanker crashes -> people congregate to gather spilled fuel -> fuel ignites, killing a hundred people". --Carnildo (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Without wanting to sound pedantic, the city should be spelled Makhachkala (with kh and not just h) in English. It's spelled incorrectly in the title of article. Khuft (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All the sources cited in the article agree, as does the title of our article on the city. I've moved it. —Cryptic 20:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no reason to consider an event if it doesn't have more significant or widespread effects than "people died". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Weak oppose per concerns about nominator. Open to renomination. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominator has replied to The Kip above to say that they misspoke. Aside from that, the person who nominates a story for ITN has no bearing on whether it should be given a blurb or not. Kurtis (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as bus crashes and train derailments of a similar or smaller death toll are regularly posted. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump indictment

 * Oppose — Fortunately, this should be the last time that a Trump indictment is nominated. In fairness, the indictment is sprawling, but the legal issues of Trump have already been covered on ITN. The role of the other eighteen defendants is far too intricate for the average reader—particularly outside of the United States—to properly give the same weight to as Trump, i.e. Kenneth Cheseboro's involvement into the attempts to overturn the election is not a particularly well-known fact. On a more general scale, an indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if he is being investigated in Arizona. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is the fourth indictment, and the third one is for essentially the same thing but at the federal level and didn't have a consensus to post. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 05:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS. The cop out false equivalency is certainly a reason to oppose, just because they both share traits. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We need convictions now. We wouldn't post a similar legal status for a former leader of another country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose We are not Trumpedia. The first one might have been justified based on the novelty of a former POTUS being criminally indicted. But we are way past that. These repeated nominations that would never even be made for most other world leaders serve as strong evidence of the projects systemic bias. Enough. We can post the verdicts when they are handed down, which is what should have been our approach from the start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would love to consider and support other nominations for former world leaders who are indicted for alleged crimes that occurred while they were in office, or related to their seeking office. We can't consider what isn't nominated.  Too many postings is not a problem right now. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;I supported posting the first indictment because it was an exceptional circumstance; up to that point, no American president had ever been indicted for a crime. The novelty of the first indictment has worn off now that there have been four. The next time we should post about Trump's legal issues is if/when there's a verdict in one of the trials. Kurtis (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS. But who are we kidding. Wikipedia's ITN is run randomly (if X random people log on and comment, no matter the logic, the numbers of Support/Oppose will decide the outcome). It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS and a vote tally will decide if it is posted. Laughable, shameful, and contemptible does not begin to describe this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a thing random about how ITN runs. —Cryptic 09:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha right. Because the 10th train derailment of this year is more noteworthy news than a RICO indictment (or any indictment) of a former POTUS. lol k Zombie Philosopher (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Week-old sports tournaments that were never meaningfully in the news aren't more noteworthy either. I'm not saying it's ok that this is being opposed.  I'm saying it's not random. —Cryptic 10:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is random in the fact that the decision to post or not post is largely based on the # of people supporting and # opposing, which is extremely gameable based on the few dozen people that post their vote, and it is extremely based on the amount of random people paying attention at any given time to what is up for consideration. Furthermore, people with agendas can be watching and skewing the tally which is the main consideration. Not the logic. Not some quantifiable objective metric of "what is actually in the news" aka "newsworthy enough to be featured on the #5 biggest website in the world". It isn't based on this. It is based on the random factor of how many people happen to be paying attention and decide to cast their vote. It's useless. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We should really have more precise guidelines for what gets or doesn't get ITN. Right now, a few anonymous votes can decide what is deemed newsworthy enough for one of the biggest websites in the world, without any clear policy behind. I suggest this should be discussed with the wider community as to whether the current system should be kept or a more explicit set of guidelines be drafted. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Not every story is important enough for ITN, and it shouldn't be a live news ticker, but I will never understand why nominations like this are opposed, when the item is clearly notable and In The News. Relatively minor sports events get featured with nearly no discussion, ones I didn't even know existed. And sure, that's just my personal experience, but I don't think I'm the only one. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a little strange how ITN is run atm. It's weird how a story like this is struck down for being almost routine at this point, yet we post the National Darts Championships or high death toll disasters without question. Not to say that these events aren't notable, but for a section called 'In The News' we don't seem to post what is actually In The News often, sometimes out of some moral point about the prevalence of domestic American politics in international discussion.
 * For the record, I'm inclined to oppose this story, but I think we should honestly have some kind of convention to determine how exactly this section should be run. It feels like everyone has different ideas and philosophies about what deserves to be posted, and sometimes notability criteria gets a little ridiculous (see WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What's annoying too is that it's only the US that's treated this way. When Elizabeth II died last year, the entirety of Wikipedia, ITN included, completely turned themselves inside out to cover every nuance about it. ITN had both an ongoing event related to her funeral and if I recall, also at least two blurbs related to her death (one for her death, one for her funeral), and then this year we did the same thing with the coronation of Charles. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you have that completely wrong. For any other country, an event like this, the charging of a former leader, would never be posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If they were as well-known and as talked about as Trump, yes they would. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they wouldn’t. Surely not. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, if Boris Johnson gets charged with a crime, note right here and right now that I'd support posting that story on ITN, and I imagine most people here would. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Thanks God this is not Trumpedia or USApedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm astonished at the opposition here.  Is this ITN or isn't it?  These people(and in this case, not just Trump) were nominated for allegedly running a criminal enterprise to overturn a democratic election. It's particularly ironic for Rudy Giuliani who jailed people as a federal prosecutor for RICO violations. ITN is withering on the vine here and it's sad. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support I hate him and I hate talking about him, but it's not just the #1 story in the US, it's the #1 story on BBC News and ABC (Australia) and Le Monde and El Pais and... look, this is called In The News, and the story is the news right now. If the target article is up to snuff- which I think this one is, barely- then it's what we should be posting, whether we like it or not. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ITNATA, we don't consider if a story is the top headline across news sources (or not) with ITNC, as we are not a news ticker. M asem (t) 12:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How is a section literally called 'In The News' not a news ticker? Genuine question, not trying to be snarky. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument is that ITN doesn't just post whatever news happens, even if it's top news, it has a higher significance standard that needs to be met. That's why celebrity gossip or certain other types of stories (low death toll disasters, subnational politics, arbitrary records etc.) don't get posted. See WP:NOTATICKER for more details. Some people of course disagree with this philosophy. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree with it, but I do think the insistence of not being a news ticker is sometimes taken to extremes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank god ITN isn't nearly as important as its gatekeepers think it is. Kicking222 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it's the top story in the English-speaking world right now. Trump might lead the story, but the 18 others like Mark Meadows are a significant development. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dog bites man. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 10:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment and idea I think this would definitely be noteworthy if it were the first one, but now that there've been multiple indictments I'm not sure it's worth posting them anymore. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to add Indictments against Donald Trump to "Ongoing". That way it wouldn't look like we were ignoring the situation, but we wouldn't have to post every update. That said, I'm not sure I even fully support this idea, just throwing it out there for discussion. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing would not work at this point as there are no presently waiting grand juries or similar that could add additional indictments, so now is just the waiting game while there are orders and other legal mumbo-jumbo that will go on prior to any trial date (with possibly the DC one as early as Jan). Ongoing stories are expected to have near-daily major updates which won't happen here. M asem (t) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * IF there were an active trial and new things happening just about every day in said trial and IF there was a Wikipedia article that were being equally actively updated with said information, I could support that. This is not where we are right now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Good arguments to support, but personally I do think that a Trump-related story is nominated every week at this point. I think we should wait until these cases are settled in a court of law and post the result. I also think that there is a case to post the Trump Indictments to ongoing, however as others have pointed out the updates probably aren't frequent or consistent enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose/wait The general policy has always been that we post the conclusion of legal processes, not incremental steps along the way. Once any trial or legal proceedings has been completed, I would be fully on-board with posting, whatever the results.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought the last one was the most important one? Also, per others, call back when there's a conviction. CoatCheck (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - it's In The News, and dominating headlines, again. Simple as. We look silly not posting it, just like we looked silly not posting the indictment from a few weeks ago. I get that people are tired of Trump, but we can't not post news stories just because they're exhausting. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the past indictment wasn't notable enough then this certainly isn't. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Even if it's the fourth time a POTUS is indicted, it's still making headline news everywhere. That Trump's legal issues are dominating the news cycle recently is just reality, and not something that should be "balanced against" for fear of centering the man. Even taken individually, these are still extremely important events. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (1) significant story, (2) of wide public interest, (3) with a nice quality article. Opposition is lots of personal opinion of "we nominate too many Trump stories" and "the novelty of indicting Trump has worn off". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Jayron32. That being said, this is very much in the news and is potentially the most important of all the indictments. I would be opposed to any ongoing though, as these proceedings will last a loooong time and there may be little to update for awhile. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another ham sandwich. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Man bites dog Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Here we go again. If someone can make a compelling argument as to why this is different I'm inclined to hear it out, but otherwise, this is now indictment number 4. The Kip (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, but without the photo. The story meets three of the four criteria on WP:ITNPURPOSE. And the Hazara Express derailment was ten days ago. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing much to add to what others have said. ITN should guide readers to articles related to items in the news. This is very much in the news across the world. Khuft (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I think this is going to be buried, this isn't the first time Trump has been indicted on some January 6th-related charge, and this probably won't be the last. When he was indicted the first time, that was ITN-worthy because it had been rare for a former U.S president to be indicted on a criminal charge, the second time may still have been ITN-worthy, but now, this is barely even news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This story is by far the most covered story in major news outlets as of now, and the article is of good quality. Some of the above opposing arguments say we should wait to post this until some decision in a possible trial arises. Now, if this was the first indictment, it seems reasonable to conclude that we would have posted (as we did post the real first indictment). This is of course not the first indictment, but I think labeling this as just another indictment of Trump is misleading. This is, for example, the first indictment for 18 other co-defendants. And even if it should be counted as just the fourth indictment of Trump, it being covered as the top story in the major news outlets, IMO, means it should be published.
 * 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this story is NOT by far the most covered story in major news outlets as of now. My country has quickly moved on. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominated articles do indeed name numerous defendants besides Trump and many of these don't seem to have articles. So, WP:PERP applies, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly, weakest possible oppose to the point it's almost neutral. The time to post an indictment was the first one for its uniqueness or the third one for its relationship to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. I would not be upset if this gets posted, but I think at this point the thing to post is a conviction. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support Clearly in the news around the world and a major story which will continue to get a lot of coverage. Personally, I also think it's notable that Rudy Giuliani is among those indicted. To non-Americans, he might be the most recognizable co-conspirator behind Trump because he was mayor of New York City when 9/11 happened. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was indicted too. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's not in the news around the world. Just checked my local major news service, and it's gone. (It did appear yesterday for a while.) Trump indictments are passe these days. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been 24 hours since the indictment, of course it's not going to be the top story forever. If being the top story for more than 24 hours was a requirement, ITN would be empty, because that rarely happens (none of the current 4 items would qualify). I just checked my own local news sources and they all have Trump on the home page, just not the top story anymore. Also, Trump and other co-defendants will be booked and arraigned soon, so it won't be long until it's the top story again. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, the legal affairs of a president not from your country, appeared in major news sources in your country? Must've been very noteworthy. The legal affairs of other presidents don't appear in major news in most countries. Something to reflect upon while you hate on how America is disproportionately represented in media, the news, world culture, etc. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you dial down on the snarky stuff, please? Practically every comment of yours in this thread is like this and it's getting boring. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your personal interpretation and preference. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it will be my personal preference to block you from the page if you carry on, so knock it off. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Block me, to save me from your silly self-righteousness and busy-body opinionating. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only a scroll or two with the mousewheel down the ABC page for me still. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1183:7021:B7C4:8F1F (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is the fourth indictment, and a blurb for it has already been posted previously. In the past five years, Trump has appeared on ITN five times, far more than other world leaders, so everyone internationally already knows this story and the story hasn't changed significantly enough yet to be posted again – when he is convicted or the full legal process is complete, then it could be posted. Happily888 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say since we posted the Putin indictment.) Banedon (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose An awful precedent was set with posting previous indictments. I would support posting a conviction, but not another indictment. Chrisclear (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be great if editors could avoid using local jargon, such as "RICO", so that non-Americans can understand their edits. On a related note, who is "RICO", and what does he have to do with Trump? Chrisclear (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, even as an American I'm not sure what that term means. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Went and looked it up for the fun of it. Still not sure how a RICO charge is worse then charging a guy with incitement of insurrection., so all it is is another "first". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a shame someone hasn't invented an easy-to-use online encyclopedia where a person could easily search for concepts they were unfamiliar with, and then learn about them all on their own, without having to wait for someone to explain it to them. Just a shame.  The world could use such a thing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your unnecessary snarkiness - editors shouldn't have to do additional research to understand the meaning of other editors' comments. It's just plain common sense, politeness (and as Waltcip stated below, courtesy) to define acronyms the first time they are used, so that those unfamiliar with the term can understand what is being written. Chrisclear (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Jayron. In the meantime, we have to rely on people's courtesy to explain regional terms to users who may not be from that country, of which this site has a pretty high number. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose only an indictment. Nigej (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As has been astutely stated previously, we're only scratching the surface of the legal troubles that Trump will be facing. An individual blurb is not appropriate. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely agree, there is already rumor of another (5th) indictment. The hits just keep on coming. I suppose we could just keep posting Trumps woes ITN, but I'm willing to bet his campaign team just sees it as more publicity (good/bad, doesn't really matter). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - meh, new state charges, second state to charge. Dont see this having a snowballs chance at this point anymore either, so should just be closed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As I said on the previous one, the consensus over ITN standards is that it should be a lot more than a news ticker for whatever seems to be the top headlines at the moment. StellarHalo (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is by now routine. What makes more sense to me is to tidy up the legal affairs of Donald Trump as president article and post that in on-going.  Schwede 66  03:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Collins

 * Strong Support not only because the article meets standards, but as a Washington State Wikipedian, it's hard losing one of our own Seahawks. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears to be in decent shape and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There is contradictory information on DoB. The article about his death at the NFL news section says "Collins, who would have turned 29 on Aug. 28", whereas other sources like USA Today say "Collins would have turned 29 on Aug. 26." Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All other reputable sports sources (PFRef, U of Arkansas, ESPN.com, etc) list his date of birth as the 26th; I'd be willing to bet the NFL.com editor simply made a typo/error. The Kip (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the birth date is cited in the article as it stands. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * External links. Career statistics/biographical information are from PFRef as with almost all other football pages. The Kip (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article seems to be of quality and he was a professional athlete who is a person of interest to many. His death is news.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks complete and well-sourced. Another young athlete passing too early; always tough! --Engineerchange (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted after adding a specific in-text reference for the birth date. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tom Jones (writer)

 * Oppose Career section could be more expansive and in-depth. Some cn tags also need to be addressed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears sufficient enough for RD since sourcing issues have been addressed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, hat if off-topic Was there a consensus reached on how to post people who have the same name as other, dare we say, more famous people? Let's be honest, the name Tom Jones means only one person to most readers. In fact, page views for Tom Jones (singer) seem to have skyrocketed due to the writer's death |Tom_Jones_(singer) unless the singer did something yesterday that I never heard of. I don't see the harm in putting the full title with the job title, to aid the reader and prevent unnecessary distress to people close to the singer. Lord knows what will happen when Harry Kane (hurdler) dies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we post it as an RD, we should include the parenthesized "writer" for clarity. When I saw "Tom Jones died" as the title for a news article yesterday, I initially thought that it was referring to the singer as well. We have long risen above that kind of misleading clickbait, and we should continue to do so. Kurtis (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought immediately of the novel. Never heard before of the singer, actually. 72.46.2.163 (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've probably heard at least one or two of his songs without knowing it was him. Perhaps you'll recognize this one, or this one? Kurtis (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit too short, me thinks. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose What's there is ok but I think it fails the "no significant gaps" criterion - decades of his life go unmentioned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rodion Amirov

 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be cleaned up, I've explained further on the talk page. The Kip (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks alright. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, looking good. Absolutely tragic is right. RIP. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I added a source link to the two tables. Вечная память! -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Delwar Hossain Sayeedi

 * Almost Ready, will support when fixed Besides the CN tag and BSN tag, the article looks pretty good. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Overall well sourced article except for one cn tag and a better source needed tag, but they shouldn't keep this article from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose neutrality tag. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Clarence Avant

 * Not Ready He should be a RD, but article needs a small bit of work. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I really don't think he is. But to avoid what happened with Friedkin (ie, opinions on RD readiness lost amidst a sea of blurb-worthiness debate), could we start a ===== subsection===== below to keep the two discussions – one technical and essentially objective, the other highly subjective – separate? Here and henceforth? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a relevant discussion about this topic on the talk section of ITN that you might be interested in. It's better to contribute your thoughts about it there rather than here. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where exactly that is proposed. Thanks for the pointing me in that direction. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Im just going to undue my blurb thought. I'd thought maybe he might be a borderline, with having signed Bill Withers, produced several films, the nickname, and revleance in the African American sphere, but... it seems it may not be close enough. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. If User:MonarchOfTerror agrees, we could delete this entire nest. Might save some confusion. Moscow Mule (talk)
 * If there’s no objections I could hat this discussion since it's off topic and irrelevant now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've done some work but there are 2 cn tags left and the lead still needs expansion. Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  16:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost ready: One citation needed tag to go (could remove that sentence to deal with it). The bigger issue is the "lead too short" tag; that must be addressed.  Schwede 66  06:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The current intro has three sentences. Good enough, I hope? -- PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan new PM

 * Comment - Is there any precedent to posting interim heads of state? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @PrecariousWorlds I took a look through the archives and here's what I found. Also worth noting that the PM of Pakistan is head of government and not head of state. Nomination for Pakistan caretaker PM (in 2013), not posted with 1 oppose and 1 support. Another nomination for Pakistani caretaker PM (in 2018), not posted with 1 support, 1 oppose and 1 comment. Nomination for Austrian interim chancellor (in 2019), posted but as an update to another blurb (which involved the government being dismissed in a no confidence motion), notably she was also the first female chancellor, which may have affected the posting. Nominator for this also said "Appointment of interim leaders is usually not ITN worthy but I think in this case an exception should be made (...)". Nomination for Peru interim president (in 2020), not posted with 4 opposes, 1 comment and 1 question. Worth noting that it was part of bigger situation and that the President of Peru is both head of government and head of state. Nomination for acting head of state in Gabon, posted with 1 support way back in 2009. So consensus seems to primarily be against it, especially recently. Of course, it's always worth keeping in mind that consensus can change! Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much for going back and finding all of this!
 * The fact that this is only the head of government rather than state brings down notability, so I'm inclined to Oppose. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close the appointment of an acting HoG is never ITNR and shouldn’t be. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I don't think this should be posted, arguing to close a discussion about a legitimate topic before anyone else has had a chance to weigh in is unnecessary at best and rude at worst. Letting a discussion breathe for a few hours won't hurt us. (Also, this wasn't an ITNR nomination, so why even mention it?) Kicking222 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone so gung-ho all of a sudden to rush through nominations at the speed of light? Let people have a conversation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply because it is my opinion. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I've definitely seen an uptick in the incidence of ITN regulars attempting to shut down discussions before they're even allowed to happen. What this communicates to the person on the receiving end is that their idea is so bad, it's not even worthy of the bandwidth used to type "oppose" over it. That is antithetical to how we do things here, and shouldn't be an accepted part of the discourse at ITN. Kurtis (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious is an opinion just as respectable as betting on leaving it open for a longer period of time. Let's not exaggerate or claim unethical opinions that we do not share. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is there is no harm in keeping this discussion open, and there is possible harm in closing it early. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious"&mdash;Obvious to whom? You? Me? We are both on the record as being opposed to a blurb in this case, but maybe other editors have opinions that are different from ours, and they should have the opportunity to speak before someone preemptively invokes WP:SNOW. Also, which "unethical opinions" are you referring to? The only thing anyone here is saying is that it comes across as dismissive&mdash;and even a little bit contemptuous&mdash;for someone to call for a discussion to be closed before it even begins. Kurtis (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's obvious to me, that's why I called to close it. I doubt very much that calling to close a discussion early could hurt anyone, but in any case we can't be constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own. Just because I ask for it to be closed, it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment. Therefore, the debate is not over. It’s my opinion, I have reasons to raise it and I would not change it. Btw, I was not the one who said that some arguments are antiethical. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you say "it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment", what does "Oppose and close" add rather than a simple "Oppose"? The debate is on whether the story should be posted, we are not here to have a parallel debate on whether to close the debate early - the votes should speak for themselves, and, if they stay unanimously "Oppose" (as they are now), there isn't anything lost in not closing it as the story wouldn't be posted either way. But we couldn't have known that that would be the case if it had been closed early.
 * In any case, you're the one who is suggesting to cut off the conversation early, you don't have a standing for calling others "constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own". Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The word I used was antithetical, which is a somewhat fancy way of saying "the antithesis of". Basically, suggesting that we close the discussion early runs counter to how things are done on Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Caretaker PM until next elections, unlikely to have much significance. The Kip (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's an interim position. But the Prime Minister (HoG) is the head of the political executive in most parliamentary democracies including Pakistan, not the President (HoS) who's a figurehead. So that's the right position for ITN. A modicum of research would've cleared that up, but some editors would rather dogpile. 5.151.106.3 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;Barring exceptional circumstances, we generally don't post the appointment of interim heads of state and government, as it is intended to be a brief transition period. I don't think there is anything different about this case that would warrant a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, interim head of state until the next elections. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Patricia Bredin

 * Currently needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still needs ref improvements. --PFHLai (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

[Attention needed, please. READY, imho.] RD: Bill Schlesinger

 * Weak support Short but given his relatively uneventful professional career, meets minimum standards. Could use some additional expansion tbh, such as from this article: .  Spencer T• C 23:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. His career-ending injury (getting hit in the face by a pitch) should be in his wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences using materials from the SABR article, including a bit on his injury from the hit-by-pitch in August 1970. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * support -on the short side but sufficient. Good sourcing. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've placed a couple of citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No more {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Question I updated this article, but I didn't nominate it because there's no news source about his death. The source presented is from the funeral home. I didn't think that was sufficient for RD. Am I wrong? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * His profile at the Baseball Almanac displays his date and place of death. (Even where he was buried!) I have added this as a source for his death in the wikibio. Should be qualifying now, methinks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Drew

 * Support well-referenced, looks good! Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article looks pretty good except exact DoB is uncited (the cited book in the lead only says 1932) and the source for the info about his wife and children only confirms that Gordon Drew is a professional golfer that works at Donaghadee Golf Club, and not the information about when he met his wife and that they had two children named Heater and Gordon. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Couple of changes +refs made. Nigej (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work! I now support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and updated. G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Yevgeny Yozhikov-Babakhanov

 * Almost Ready/Weak Oppose There is one CN tag that I put on the article, but other than that, the article looks fine. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Salaudeen Latinwo

 * Weak Oppose The article is mostly well-cited but the personal life section could use more citations. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I placed five citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  06:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Berit Lindholm

 * Support Well sourced and updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary-Louise McLaws

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is overally well-referenced and meets requirements for RD. Happily888 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks alright for a new article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support good length and well-cited ❤History  Theorist❤  04:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rosemary S. Pooler

 * Not Ready Early career remains uncited & one statement in notable dissent section needs citation as well. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose whole unreferenced section. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Chris Axworthy

 * Comment: Lead needs expansion. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm uncomfortable with all the unreferenced election result tables.  Schwede 66  06:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: W. Jason Morgan

 * Posted Good enough; adequately cited.  Schwede 66  11:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Peno

 * Support Article looks good. A lot of quotes though. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giora Romm

 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Good sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mike Ahern

 * Oppose Major sourcing work needed. Article potentially has NPOV issues as well, especially with the info being unsourced, such as describing Bjelke Peterson as "wily" (unsourced), which definitely has negative implications and stuff like "Bjelke-Petersen worked actively to destabilise the government from outside of Parliament.", "Bjelke-Petersen was determined to stymie Ahern's ambitions to be in Cabinet." (Also unsourced). At the very least a RS has to be found for these and they could still be NPOV violations. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose serious unreferenced sections. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julian Haviland

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks alright. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angela Flowers

 * Support article is well cited and looks ready to go. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bikash Sinha

 * Support, the article seems ready to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Three {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Also, how come there is no description of the science he studied? --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed cn tags and added some additional info about his work in science. Can you take a look again ? Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new additions and refs. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Henry Dickerson

 * Oppose Needs sourcing work, too much uncited information. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Antonella Lualdi

 * Oppose filmography is uncited and article as a whole is a bit stubby ❤History  Theorist❤  16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is currently a stubby wikibio with only 176 words of prose. Please expand it. Can the Italian wikibio be translated and then footnoted, please? --PFHLai (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Doreen Mantle

 * The Career section is currently tagged for needing expansion. There are 20+ {cn} tags in the Filmography section. --PFHLai (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Brice Marden

 * Comment Birthdate appears to be uncited, unless it is in that offline book. Curbon7 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added a citation. Mooonswimmer 01:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are too many un cited statements and at least one CN tag that need to be dealt with before posting. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Paul Brodeur

 * Oppose the article is a bit stubby and it needs more citations. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Hugh Segal

 * Oppose the article needs more citations before it's ready. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: Fernando Villavicencio

 * Comment Currently expanding article, but I would support a blurb given how close it was to the general election and looking at the polls, he was indeed a top candidate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is big news in Ecuador and the world, a lot of news outlets reporting on this too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2for2ded (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This just happened so it's still early in terms of media coverage, but this is definitely a major story, less than 2 weeks before the election. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to 2023 Ecuadorian general election he was not really a "leading" candidate, so not sure he meets the level of a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the polls, he was certainly polling in second-third with some instances in second place. I think the reason for the blurb is how he was assassinated two weeks before the general election. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The latest entry on that article seems to put him at 4th, that is too far back to be "leading" in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling him a leading candidate, but he certainly was a major candidate who polled relatively well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article from Barron's also adds additional context: Rampant Lawlessness Looms Over Ecuador Election; . Prior to this year, Ecuador's democracy had been steadily recovering since the chaos of the late 20th-century, but this is the most glaring example of the increasing instability and backsliding in the country, which is how the BBC is reporting it. Curbon7 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional context for the increasing political violence in Ecuador the past few months: . Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD at least, the article seems to meet those requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb 1 is also good, not opposed to it. - Indefensible (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If he was consistently polling lower than 5% I’d agree, but he’s been in a very close 3rd/4th place with one poll having him in the runoff. The Kip (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;The successful assassination of a leading presidential candidate mere weeks before the next election is a big deal. Kurtis (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb solely on article quality. Assassination is covered in just four sentences which is not adequate for linking on the main page. This event really should have its own article. Support RD for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Once more information is known/released I will expand the assassination section. All the information you see from the information that is avaliable. I doubt it'll be good enough for an individual article once more information is known as Masem said.
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't get an article up on this fairly quickly. A lot of that would likely be good enough to serve as a framework for our own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section given the new info coming out.
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear that it is the assassination aspect that makes this a blurb rather than the significance of the person, but in that regard, the amount of details on the assassination is woefully lacking that I must oppose blurb until more details on the assassination are incorporated into the article. It does not like sound or that we need to split off the assassination, just that there should some idea of suspects or the like among other details. --M asem (t) 01:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Once more information is known, I'll expand the section as I've been doing for the article. Might take a day until details are known.
 * Support blurb with expansion noted below. However, why is there now a separate article on the assassination? There's nowhere near a size issue to make a separate article at this point. --M asem (t) 03:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The one thing that stands out as missing before this should even be posted as an RD is whom is suspected - doesn't need to be a name, but did they catch the shooter, or see if they were connected to the cartels? The full details around that would help on posting the blurb, but if we're looking for an RD now, those should be a focus. And yes, I see no sources with that info yet. M asem (t) 01:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Shooter is dead, according to Reuters. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb for now per Ad Orientem and Masem ❤History  Theorist❤
 * Support Very significant, definitely a major story, and once the section about his death is expanded, this is ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This happened only like an hour-and-a-half ago, so major details are understandably thin. Should have a better idea by tomorrow. Curbon7 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb High-level political assassination just weeks before a national election. Easy blurb story. The Kip (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to say I support ALT2 or 3. The Kip (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <S>Oppose for now Unquestionable notability. I agree with Ad Orientem and Masem. Probably in a few hours much more will be known, so it will be easy to extend the coverage of the murder. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have an article, but as you consider. <S>Once the information is extended, take this vote as a full support of the altblurb <S>if you see that I have not expressly changed it. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - I'm not sure how notable this person was, but even if he was the equivalent of a third party candidate in the US, I think that's enough to merit a blurb. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Major news of a leading candidate that is assassinated weeks before an election. This is notable enough to be on ITN.  TomMasterReal  TALK 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Major repercussions, good enough coverage.  Bremps  ...  01:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb and altblurb II have my support as the best options.  Bremps  ...  04:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment, , , : I've expanded the section given the new info coming out. I'm certain info about the gunman/motive will be released within the hours. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your great job TDKR! _-_Alsor (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. AltBlurb3 respectfully submitted. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — Nine people were injured according to Reuters. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support either Alt II or III. There is a separate article now and it is adequate for posting. (Struck my above oppose.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt II, or whatever appropriate blurb to get this on the Main Page. Major news. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment While it's good to see a consensus for a blurb, I feel that this assassination does not merit to have its own article at the current time. I feel that much of the info covered in the individual assassination article is covered pretty much the same in Villavicencio's own article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3. Davey2116 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestion He was also an elected congressman. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Per above basically. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb with preference for altblurb 3 as being the most carefully worded. While it's true that Ecuador is prone to periods of political instability (the President of Ecuador article indicates that there have been multiple times in which a military junta has taken power), this is a textbook example of "Death as the main story" in the WP:ITNRDBLURB criteria. Absolutely noteworthy event with wide-ranging impact and depth of coverage. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3. Good to go. This is a major political event which occurred less than two weeks before the snap general elections, and while I support altblurb 3 (as I believe it is the most well-constructed blurb among the choices), I also think it should be noted in the blurb that a state of emergency has already been declared by President Lasso because of Villavicencio's assassination. Vida0007 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to switch the photo. Woakes has been there for nine days. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. Photo should be swapped. Can I suggest these one over the existing suggestion (which is angled in a strange way)? F4U (they/it) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment This is exactly the kind of situation where a blurb should be used for a death. There's more to say about it than So-and-so died at age such-and-such.  Blurbs should always be used when we have something important to say, and political assassinations are the kind of stories that benefit from the elaboration of a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lil Tay

 * Wait The article is in good shape, but regarding her death, I'd wait in case more developments come out. If nothing develops, I'd Support. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has sufficient coverage of her life, in enough detail.  Bremps  ...  23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Death is disputed. Sources are only going off an Instagram post at this time. It was known that she was not in control of her social media presence. TarkusAB talk / contrib 00:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I withdraw this nomination given the disputed nature of her death. Will renominate should her death be confirmed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Literally all we have as a source for her death is an Instagram post. The Vancouver and Los Angeles police departments have said that her death has not been reported and they are not investigating into it, contrary to the claims of the IG post. In any case, it's also clear that this whole debacle hasn't ended yet (I really hope she's okay, this entire event is a tragedy), so we should keep an eye out for what happens and Wait. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Robbie Robertson

 * Oppose Unsourced filmography, a few cn tags here and there as well as generally some unsourced info. Needs ref work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;At the risk of getting flamed by some of the regulars here, I think there is a genuine case to be made that Robbie Robertson was a highly transformative figure in popular music. The Band's first two albums, Music from Big Pink and The Brown Album, are widely considered to be among the most influential LPs of their time. Robertson wrote nearly all of their most famous songs: "The Weight", "Up on Cripple Creek", "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down", "The Shape I'm In", "Chest Fever", etc. After the dissolution of The Band, he went on to produce the soundtracks for many Scorcese movies, such as Raging Bull, Casino, and The Departed. If not a full-blown blurb, I wonder if he would merit a picture on the main page, just like we did with Little Richard. Thoughts? Kurtis (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A photo rd is rare, but maybe, if using the Little Richard comparison could work here... TheCorriynial (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you could make a case for it. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt if it would gain consensus for a blurb because of the slew of "old man dies" and "never heard of him" comments, but a photo RD would be good. Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've included a photo of the artist as a young man. The resolution isn't great. The composition is the best of what's in the article (in my opinion); haven't checked Commons and am open to something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Many of the news stories today alone, support the transformative aspects of his career and compositions: Per the NYT front page headline, in a nearly 3,000 word article, Canadian Songwriter Captured American Spirit. . . (with subhead) "helped inspire the genre that came to be known as Americana." Light show (talk)
 * Append re: transformative aspects. Per Rolling Stone today, "they forever changed the pop-culture landscape by releasing brilliant Americana music at the peak of the psychedelic movement. Their first album sent shockwaves through the industry, inspiring Eric Clapton to break up Cream, The Beatles to attempt their own stripped-back project with Let It Be, and a pair of young British songwriters named Elton John and Bernie Taupin to begin writing and recording their own material." Light show (talk)
 * Post-death hagiography doesn't need to be reflected in Wikipedia, which is supposed to be more sober. Stop trying to use "transformative" option.  It's a non-starter.  Instead, blurbs should be used to explain something extra about the death.  Robertson can have been transformative, but if the blurb has nothing more to say than "He died", that's why RD was created.  RD was not created so that we could grant extra visibility to people we really think are really important by giving them blurbs themselves, RD's only purpose is to avoid blurbs that only report an unremarkable death.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to some minor sourcing issues that need to be cleaned up before this is main-page-ready. When that is fixed, this should be an RD-only posting.  Nothing additional needs to be said in a blurb than that he died.  That's RD's purpose.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What about my photo suggestion? Would you be in favor of that? Kurtis (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic on the use of photos for RDs. Don't really care one way or the other.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo When Ready Beside the CN tags, 284 instances of "Robertson" might be a bit much. No dealbreaker, but I'd appreciate more pronouns. Certainly the sort of celebrity who should stand out from the pack, but unlike the less photographed presidential hopeful, there's basically no story here (just one twist). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support photo Over half a million views so far. But I'd never heard of him before and the name doesn't stand out so just putting the name alone in RD won't do. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Photo RD  I would think we should be good enough to attempt posting soon. TheCorriynial (talk)
 * Oppose photo RD It is no longer done, and we must continue not to do it. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that it was only done once, and to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any discussion in which it was explicitly proscribed for future RDs. Kurtis (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - A quick look at the article shows me it should now at least be posted to RD. The discussion about the photo can continue, and I'm fine with a photo or not, but I see no tags and a detailed, well-sourced article ready for ITN inclusion. Jusdafax (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article is now cleaned up and well-referenced. Happily888 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's still some cn tags. I think one-two cn tags can be overlooked, but there's a good amount left (18 total). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support* Robertson was a highly significant figure within popular music, with a widespread influence. He is significant enough to be featured as a RD. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe the question of support/oppose is one of notability, but of the quality of the article. According to Wikipedia, anybody with a Wikipedia article is notable enough to appear on RD. ❤History  Theorist❤  02:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The lack of edits on this article and its likely not making RD demonstrate that there is a great need of editors who have a general interest in improving articles of import- core articles that draw tens of thousands of views per month. There should really be a program that makes this the way to introduce new editors. Has there ever been anything like this done? It seems the majority of edit-a-thons I see advertised are for article creation. Thriley (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Collaboration of the week, Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, etc. failed to run with momentum..... How about the WikiProjects? -- PFHLai (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A shame those aren't active anymore. It seems I regularly encounter projects and discussions on here from ten years ago or more that I am more inspired by than many things I see today. The project needs some new energy! Thriley (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Véronique Trillet-Lenoir

 * Oppose Article needs some ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. There are no cn tags currently. - Indefensible (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Hawaii wildfires

 * Wait - But will probably be significant. It's ongoing, and the damage and casualties are still being assessed. Early reports are suggesting that much of Lahaina has been destroyed. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m not opposed to posting this, but I have a question. 9-1-1 is used in the US and a few other countries, but other countries use different numbers for emergency services. Would people outside these countries understand the reference? (I am from the U.S., so I don’t know) Potentially, we could link to the 9-1-1 article or reference emergency services. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb probably needs to be rewritten, something else would be described instead. - Indefensible (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until it develops into something significant (which, unfortunately, seems likely). I also think the blurb should be rewritten&mdash;specifically, the "Big Island" is itself known as "the island of Hawai'i". Kurtis (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that wording, given the state and the island in question have the same name. I'm not sure about this perspective internationally, but I'd believe at least within the US that most would more understand it if "the Big Island" were mentioned. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As you can easily see, these are not the only active forest fires in the world. And it is neither the most relevant nor the most worrying, as failures in the electricity supply are neither the most serious nor the most exceptional thing that can happen. And I don't know what to wait for, if it doesn't seem that things could become tragic (seeing which fires have been posted in PM because they were notorious). _-_Alsor (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait While I'm sad to see a place I've been to destroyed, I would like to see how many deaths these fires are causing and update the blurb accordingly. Alternately, I could be open to ongoing, but I'm not strongly convinced this nomination would be a good fit for ongoing. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality not sure of the significance (if it is major and the article is lagging behind, or if it really isn't) but the article still needs some expansion.  Bremps  ...  23:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's unfortunate for the people involved, but the mere existence of fire and the need to evacuate, the loss of power and the loss of "9-1-1" service is fairly common. I don't see how this is any different to other similar fires in other parts of the world. Chrisclear (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it's okay to support at this point. Over 36 have been killed, wildfires are not slowing down, major towns are destroyed, this is very much In The News. Others have pointed out the 2023 heat waves article isn't ready, but I don't think that's really neccesary at this point to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sizable loss of life, towns being destroyed, in the news...
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"emergency services" are acceptable. Chrisclear (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The use of "9-1-1" is obnoxious in its regionalism. Only blurbs that use the more accessible
 * Since when? 9-1-1 is what people in the US use, and the blurb is about an event that takes place in the US. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chrisclear What is the problem with it? Please explain. How is it obnoxious? What makes the other blurbs acceptable? I await your reply. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "9-1-1" is not the emergency services phone number in all countries on Earth, and it follows that not all readers would be familiar with it. It would be better to use a more generic term such as "emergency services". Presumably if a similar event took place in Australia, and the proposed blurb mentioned triple zero, many readers would (understandably and correctly) ask for an alternative term to be used. Chrisclear (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye. I had a jokebook as a kid, and one asked something like what happens when you dial 666? Turns out, a policeman walks in on his hands! There was a picture, but I still didn't really get it for about 15 years, figured it was some sort of Christian allusion. But nope, just otherworldly; the Internet can help people faster now, thankfully, but it would have still been easier to use the more universally recognized term in this case (where the whole idea doesn't hinge on the detail). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle There appears to be significant cultural damage; in addition to the destruction of the historic center of Lahaina (video), a museum/cultural-center with countless artifacts was also destroyed . At the moment, the death toll is six, but the significance of a disaster goes beyond just a body count. That said, neither of the proposed blurbs do it for me, and the article still needs considerable work. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * horrendous video. But excuse me for frivolizing. This is what fire behaves, it destroys. The destroyed historical center is a little less than 300 years old, of a little known town and, for now, it does not seem that there have been significant patriotic and historical elements destroyed. What is the real value in the history of mankind, of Hawaii or of the United States left in ashes? Having in mind the fires of the National Museum of Brazil or the University of Cape Town (where the loss was irreparable for the history of the respective countries. Or also taking into account the fires of Sicily, which destroyed the body of St. Benedict "the Moor" when his sanctuary burned or threatened the Greek temple of Segesta) I see very far from having a comparable notoriety to also be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In tandem with Masem's point below, that is a valid point. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still waiting for the worldwide 2023 heat waves article to get to spec that would include all these wildfires that are going on. Posting any one wildfire this year over another, short of a massive life loss, would be inappropriate. --M asem (t) 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I Concur If the 2023 heat waves article wasn't a mess, I'd support posting it as ongoing. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly against it. Heat waves are common in the affected areas. We would add them in ongoing every year, just as we would add tornado seasons in the USA or cyclone seasons in the Pacific. And I don't think that's the goal. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been significant coverage that ''this year's heat waves are unusual, important, and tied to climate change at the global scale. Unfortunately, the article last I checked failed to make that case, simply documenting in far too newspaper-ish style rather speaking to the big picture. We should have been trying to include that but no one worked to.improve the article. M asem (t) 14:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The death toll has risen to 36, and a whole town has been destroyed. 50.101.173.184 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with 36 deaths, this is now notable enough for the front page. Article quality is good enough in its current state. NorthernFalcon (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Undecided - We've had dozens and dozens of wildfires nominated that fail to get traction because, as Alsor and Masem have both pointed out, it's wildfire season and climate change is significantly increasing the incidence of this. The loss of life and the destruction of communities is regrettable, but that is often the case with wildfires. We ought to come to a decision whether wildfires are inherently notable regardless of where they occur, or whether we need to continue to be discretionary and only post those that smash records or result in unprecedented catastrophic destruction. My tendency is towards the former, but the current mood on ITN/C seems to be the latter. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. I share your indecision.... _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - While wildfires have become somewhat a common occurrence nowadays, I think the location of this one makes it much more notable, not to mention that the fatality count has risen dramatically to 36 now. Article looks ready to be posted too, as I have seen no {cn} tags upon checking; even if there are two sections currently orange-tagged for expansion (Impacts and Response), I think those sections could be further expanded in the coming days, if not hours. Vida0007 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought that as well, but then the Background section of the Wikipedia article said: The typical area burned by wildfires in Hawaii has increased in recent decades, almost quadrupling. Experts blame the increase on the spread of non-native vegetation and hotter, drier weather. which, although that citation came from a news article specifically about this wildfire, seemed to hint that this may just be a climatic fait accompli, particularly as it also mentions later how the decrease in rainfall is consistent with the effects of anthropogenic climate change. So despite the isolated location, it seems that this has become a more frequent occurrence in the past couple of decades and is not just a freak event. Now, is climate change worth highlighting on ITN? Yes. Have we done a poor job up to this point publishing climate change-related stories? Absolutely. Is this the story to do it? ... I don't know. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - one of Hawaii's historic districts is almost completely burned to the ground, and now dozens of deaths. It isnt just a "forest fire". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 - Lahaina was Hawaii's capital for a time, so it's not just some insignificant town with a historic district. The number of dead also makes this more notable than other wildfires that have sadly afflicted the world this year. Khuft (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - death toll is now at least 36. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  14:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A tragic loss of life and historic property, making headline news, and I suggest we post this now, seeing as concensus has developed. Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Planning to post since support is clear. There are two orange-level expand tags, which I am not sure are necessary. Can they be addressed/removed first? --Tone 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tone, ✅ <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Certain votes demeaning this as just “a little known town” subject to some routine natural disaster are frivolous at best and outright biased at worst. Considerable Hawaiian cultural heritage was lost here and the death toll’s not insignificant either. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to loss of life in particular. No real blurb preference. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I was a support before the death toll shot up but that seals it. The earlier comments trivializing this fire are pretty unbelievable, honestly. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to ITN, where anything American is automatically trivialized. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The earlier comments, User:Torsodog, was from when there were few, if any, deaths. Please AGF. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm very much turned off by the fixation on minimum deaths here, actually. The town was completely destroyed at the point of those earlier comments and it was still trivialized. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 01:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The main comment questioning if any significant cultural heritage was lost compared to other fires (the primary two mentioned being in non-western countries) was in direct response to a comment acknowledging at least six dead.
 * ITNC concerns itself so much with not appearing to have an American bias that it occasionally circles around to an outright anti-American bias. It’s trivializing behavior, especially when the scale of the destruction is now better-known. The Kip (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't this ITN (which I support) an example of American bias? It was posted very quickly. I don't believe that an article about a similar event in Mali would have been edited to ITN-ready so quickly. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was posted in a little under 24 hours, which I think is pretty good. I don't know about Mali, but in Mati, a similar wildfire was posted in 16 hours. The fact that an article can be readily posted after a significance threshold is reached has more to do with availability of reliable sources than any sort of deliberate "fuck you, foreigners; the USA is #1" mentality being suggested by some editors around here. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 18:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest we use this image or the other one from the info box. 50.101.173.184 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agree that a photo would be helpful. The tragic death toll is growing, my thanks for the timely update. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dorothy Casterline

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Muon g-2

 * Still ambivalent on the one hand, it's not at the point where we can say there's new physics (because the theoretical calculations are tough enough that they could be wrong); on the other hand, it's a tantalizing incremental step, and we've not had any science news on ITN for a while. So, no real preference either way. Banedon (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a physicist, but per Banedon, the wider implications of this for the Standard Model look unclear. Measurement and adjustment of previous values is common. But if it undermines the current understanding of magnetism or the Standard Model, then the blurb should be clearer. Muon g-2 states that "the final results, based on full six years of data-taking, are planned to be published in 2025", perhaps we can wait until then. Brandmeistertalk  10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Standard Model calculation for this is complex and difficult. When a new lattice method is used then "...there was no discrepancy at all."  So the result indicates that the Standard Model is still valid but that the previous methods of calculation were off by a bit.  So, this is not a big breakthrough -- just a refinement of technique. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait till 2025 per Brandmeister (it will give those in the know a chance to work out the nitty-gritty and the eight billion or so rest of us time to grasp the basics first). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Hardwick

 * Filmography section will need some sources. Other than that, it should be relatively easy to get up to shape. <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> 💙 00:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have no reason to doubt the brief filmography section, so would ignore the usually good rule and add footnotes later for the sake of getting this in while it's actually in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not sacrifice quality for timeliness. We have no deadline to post it outside of the seven day window. In addition, there's multiple missing sources in the main prose, so that's not going to fly either. M asem (t) 01:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not with that attitude, it won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll try to reference the filmography section in a few hours. Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 07:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support referenced, made some changes when necessary! Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 00:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support One cn tag, but that shouldn't keep this from posting. Pocket sand. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamie Reid

 * Weak Oppose While the article generally looks good, there are some uncited statements that would need verification before posting to RD. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Four {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining, and that sentence probably needs to be rewritten, but I need to sleep.... --PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready All sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sixto Rodriguez

 * Oppose there is a more citations needed heading in one of the sections, and the article needs more citations in general. ❤History  Theorist❤  17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently 10+ {cn} tags scattered across the prose. Much of the Discography is still unsourced. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: DJ Casper

 * Support I think this one's good to go. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are some sourcing issues in the Career section, so no, this is not good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs some major ref work. Career section could be expanded too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Main prose lacks texts and footnotes to support info in infobox and lede (dates and places of birth and death, labels). Discography is tagged with {refimprove}, but it seems that's mostly done. --PFHLai (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Federico Bahamontes

 * Weak oppose Sufficient in length and depth, but there are 3 cn tags that need addressing. Support Looks sufficient in sourcing now as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support- I addressed two of the CN tags. If someone can correct the third of them, I believe this will be ready to post. Edit: Looks good to me! SunsetShotguns (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs some ref work. There's also a source that's used that could be replaced with a better source. Also the sources listed on death section are bare links. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Have done some work on the article and I think it should now be acceptable to post to the main page.   Feel free to reevaluate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job. Support. Looks good to me. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Nigerien coup d'état / 2023 Nigerien crisis

 * Comment This was already posted. Is this meant to be a ongoing nomination? Because it looks like it. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I nominated the original on the night it happened, I have changed the nomination to ongoing. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment since the coup is done, I think a better article to have in ongoing is 2023 Nigerien crisis, which discusses the aftermath. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 2023 Nigerien crisis, but without any restrictions on also posting a story if a sufficiently significant event occurs, like ECOWAS launching an invasion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per BilledMammal. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article already ran as a blurb, and is still receiving updates on a regular basis. That's a perfect article for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32 and BilledMammal. Prefer 2023 Nigerien crisis as the linked page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support However I think 2023 Nigerien crisis is best. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, also think either "2023 Nigerian Crisis" or "2023 Nigerian Political Crisis" would be best. either way, this would seem worthy of Ongoing due to it previously being a blurb and still receiving updates. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nigerien crisis. Note the "e" instead of the "a". ;) Kurtis (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me, I will look out for it in the future. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of grammar; "Nigerien" and "Nigerian" refer to two different countries. But you're welcome. Kurtis (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;A major event that's unfolding by the day. I also agree that linking 2023 Nigerien crisis would be better than the coup itself, as it more fully encompasses the entire situation. Kurtis (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as 2023 Nigerien crisis. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New National Monument around Grand Canyon

 * Oppose politicians doing politics. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For blurb, it's about 900,000 acres; for alt, national monument should be lowercase. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Alsoriano97. Looks like political theater with very limited impact beyond prevention of mining in a small area. Monuments and wildlife preserves are created with great regularity all over the world. I can't remember posting them at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It doesn't look like it will have a lasting impact or receive sustained in-depth coverage. Stuff like this happens often and it's just internal politics, it doesn't seem notable. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak concur 900,000 acres is a lot of protected land and an exceptionally large monument; I'm glad to hear of its status update. But the cultural, economic and environmental significance seems mired in the no-go topic. As pitched and currently written, anyway, alt's not bad and articles can change. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as its a type of "under the fold" story - it has some importance, but its not as significance in the news, but strongly urge this to be presented at DYK. Perfect candidate for it. --M asem (t) 01:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Ad Orientem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rhoda Karpatkin

 * Oppose article is well-sourced but too stubby for RD ❤History  Theorist❤  22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Margit Saad

 * Oppose needs ref work and is a bit stubby ❤History  Theorist❤  04:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is currently a stubby wikibio with only 178 words of prose. Please expand it. Can the German wikibio be translated and inserted with REFs? --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Zenon Andrusyshyn

 * There are almost ten {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ambareesh Murty

 * Weak Support The article is a bit thin on info, but it would work for ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Price

 * Suppport article is of appropriate length and looks like it's well-cited. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posssted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean-Louis Cohen

 * Not Ready there are at least 2 uncited statements within the article. Will change my support if they get proper citations. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Apart from the several {cn} tags in the prose, the list of his publications also needs sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Storm Hans

 * Oppose on Quality The section is two sentences long. ❤History  Theorist❤  17:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Run of the mill storm. Not on a level of significance we typically expect for weather related events at ITN. The storm apparently is not sufficiently notable for its own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose on notability. Not a high number of fatalities. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The 2 sentence update (not including infobox) is very thin and the casualties are low. Doesn't seem notable enough, especially since it doesn't have its own article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone expanded the article, it would be better.
 * Can see if I can do it tomorrow though translation has to happen. There's evacuations, floods, closed roads, closed railway lines and landslides in some areas it's maybe worst in 25 years but since the storm is ongoing. Koltinn   (talk)  21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly as a fellow person from that brown cheese eating country up north who has constantly been seeing this on the news, I still don’t think it’s notable enough yet. My mind can be changed though, I suppose. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Storm lacks its own article and seems fairly run of the mill otherwise. The Kip (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Should've nominated that July one with 135 mph gusts and some of the largest hail ever seen (largest in Europe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment 50-100 year floods in some places in Norway.
 * Dunno if the nomination should be retracted, more articles about it pop up on international news.
 * Most of Hans's damage is due to floodings not windspeed though. Koltinn   (talk)  20:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. From the perspective of a weather-interested person, I see the intrigue, but as noted above, the article is not nearly updated enough and the impact does not yet rise to the level of storms typically posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Friedkin

 * Oppose One cn tag in early life, many cn tags in the career section, the filmography is uncited and awards section is uncited. Needs significant ref work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record I also oppose blurb. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs ref work sadly. Once it's fixed, I can behind a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Academy Award Winner, influential director. Director of two of the most famous films of 20th century. In this article is mentioned, how he influenced Spielberg, Fincher, among others. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could get behind this, but the article needs some massive ref work before debating a blurb. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * He Was 87 Heart failure/pneumonia, lived/died in LA. There will be no autopsy, maybe a public funeral. Meanwhile, we feature 80 dead who got the Pakistani counterterrorism squad involved and 30 more spurring a who's-who of investigative bodies; "not a good look" to put this one former American and his photo before them. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one! The Kip (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Famous people's deaths carry more weight. That's how the news works. By your logic, the entirety of Wikipedia's news feed should be dedicated exclusively to civilian casualties. I'd actually be fine with that if you weren't using those people's corpses to minimize the significance of William Friedkin's career. TheClubSilencio (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To some people, they do. To others, like me, consequence is heavier. I have no problem blurbing celebrities whose deaths lead to revelations (even unshocking ones) in the coming days. Then, linking for a week or so makes sense, some crave updates. When all we're ever going to know is "Recognizable Name Dies", RD's perfect. It has nothing to do with Friedkin's career. I liked a few of those movies and it was good to learn today they had him in common. But they still exist, same as yesterday. It's more obituary than top story, fleeting news. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Simply being well known, notable for a few major films, or winning awards is not sufficient to show has important/significant/transformative a figure he was. Influencing a handful of other directors is a start towards that but nowhere near sufficient. Oppose RD on poor sourcing quality. M asem  (t) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality as article still has numerous CN tags. Oppose blurb, because really? The Kip (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality; Oppose blurb per Masem... also the standard of OMD applies in this case. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don’t see how he transformed cinema in the way his contemporaries Andrei Tarkovsky and Sergio Leone did.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Or even the horror genre like Ivan Reitman (it was still scary after The Exorcist). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ivan Reitman didn't do horror films and also wasn't blurbed. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He did Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II, thereby helping the mainstream accept hauntings, monsters and possessions as goofy fun. And I know he wasn't blurbed, that's the point. Someone who didn't do much with the genres he touched besides add to their lists of good examples is less transformative. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb While The French Connection and The Exorcist are notable films from 50 years ago, Friedkin is hardly a household name. For one possible more-or-less objective notability test, a search for his name on the J-Archive (online repository of half a million Jeopardy! clues) returns only one result: a $2000 clue (hardest level) in a game played ten years ago (27 May 2013).  It was a triple stumper (none of the three contestants attempted a response).Ryan Reeder (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a household name is not criterion here, what matters is being transformative in the field. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't think of a better summing-up of ITN's US-centrism issue than a suggestion that we take Jeopardy! clues into account when evaluating if a person should be blurbed. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for RD per pretty much everybody above. Oppose blurb per pretty much everybody above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, but Oppose blurb. --Martin Mystère (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - We already get a fair amount of pushback for favoring people in the U.S. entertainment industry when it comes to death blurbs, but if it's one that most people haven't even heard of outside of movie buffs and aficionados, then it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to drink from that cup. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Guyana: Crime of the Century, 1979, René Cardona Jr. I get it. Anyway, Ready for RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus to blurb will not develop. Focus from here whether the article meets RD quality. BangJan1999 01:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this. Someone sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but not a leader in their field. Just because someone is well-known, and/or American, doesn't mean their article is worthy of a blurb upon their death. Chrisclear (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this. Someone sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but not a leader in their field. Just because someone is well-known, and/or American, doesn't mean their article is worthy of a blurb upon their death. Chrisclear (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose blurb - Blurbing Recent Deaths is not meant to be an award for notable individuals, it is only if their death has significant impact stretching beyond the event of their passing (see Elizabeth II) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Picture ITN has run the same used-car advert (right) for over a week now and so it's looking quite stale (as usual). Friedkin is not at the same level of fame as Pee-wee Herman or Sinéad O'Connor but is still attracting |2023_Hazara_Express_derailment|2023_Ashes_series|2023_Tour_de_France_Femmes|2023_Khar_bombing far more readers than all ITN's blurbs combined. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We won't do pictures for RDs. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It can and has been done, e.g. Kirk Douglas. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of the complaint that was made on WT:ITN which is that there's a great deal of chaos caused when someone requests a death blurb for an individual who has no right getting one. It completely drowns out the actual, legitimate discussion about whether the individual is ready quality-wise to be posted on WP:ITNRD. Either requests for blurbs need to be far more considered, or such a discussion needs to be broken up into two parts - one for quality and one for notability. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if/when quality issues are out of the way. Friedkin didn't make many movies but he's definitely far better known than most ITN deaths. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To expound, consider how many editors have weighed in on Friedkin's death, and how few comments there are on other RD sections. Were the other RDs of this day Tarkovskys of their field as well? Turnout would suggest no. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 22:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of them have all weighed in because of Кирилл С1 audaciously suggesting a blurb, which got people's hair standing on end, but still... 😁 Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He has influenced directors, won Oscar and had lenghty career. There could also have been argued that he was transformative figure, see obituaries. He has more right to be proposed for blurb than Prime Minister who has been in charge for 4 years. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There is still an orange tag asking for REFs in William Friedkin. --PFHLai (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are now only three awards left to be cited. I don't think that should prevent this from making RD. Thriley (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted as RD.  Schwede 66  02:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, re-nominate on 8/22) New Prime Minister in Cambodia

 * Yeah, wait until August 22 when he takes office. Things could still change before then. - Indefensible (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until he takes office, but support notability. Proposed differently-worded alt. The Kip (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once he actually takes office. Hun Sen has ruled Cambodia for nearly 40 years, so the country getting a new leader (even if it is effectively a dynastic succession) is major news. Kurtis (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb I think mentioning his father's near four decade rule coming to an end is worth mentioning. Target article looks good too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait He has not taken office yet. Once he does, it is a support from me.  TomMasterReal  TALK 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait but definite support once he actually takes office; the article looks good. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per @The Kip PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) 2023 Netball World Cup

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Referencing is not dreadful. But you have two substantially unsourced sections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Also shouldn't the all the blurbs be prefaced with "In Netball"? If we use the main blurb as an example it should be like: "In Netball, the Netball World Cup concludes with Australia defeating England in the final"? That's how most other sports blurbs (including the current blurb on the ashes series) are written in ITN. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When talking about any old World Cup, World Series or NBA Championship, it (arguably) helps those least familiar with sports in general. But this is the Netball World Cup. I don't know what netball is, but that's clearly what this award is for and I know there's going to be a link to the sport in the target article, if I want to learn more. Anyway, not ready, we'll see if IAR applies if it is. And that should probably be lowercase when it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I suppose no "In netball" is needed then. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like basketball, but not, if you or anyone's wondering. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment All cn tags seem to have been resolved and should now meet WP:ITNCRIT, could someone re-check the article before this nom becomes stale and rolls off the page. If not, could an admin IAR post this as the article has now fixed all the sourcing issues brought up above. Happily888 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been almost a week since any substantial update, so I'm inclined to let it slide this year, especially given the relative lack of coverage at its peak. That's not to say R is a bad rule or that I don't appreciate what your nomination has taught me about the tournament, Australia's dominance in this league or the game as a whole. But yeah, life goes on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although it'll be another four years before this will be able to be posted again, so it would be nice to have it posted. The oldest event in the ITN news template is still 8 days older than this date, so it is still current and not too stale in relevance to the other events. Happily888 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good enough, and not too stale yet. - Indefensible (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Entire sections (the two prelim stages, placement rounds) have zero prose at all except for 2 2nd round groups.
 * Weak support The prose isn't great but it's probably adequate for posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * could an admin post this before it scrolls off the nominations page? Happily888 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted to RD): Anita Carey

 * Weak support Article is alright, I think it could be expanded a little but it’s fine otherwise. I'm a bit uncertain on the filmography since it isn't sourced individually by each work, but WP:AGF exists so I'll just assume all the works in the filmography are in the two sources at the bottom. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment They aren't (and I'm unconvinced that the latter is reliable). Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I see what MonarchOfTerror is saying, but I think the article is okay for RD. ❤History Theorist❤  04:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Hazara Express derailment

 * Support - article has been expanded beyond a stub. - Indefensible (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because the death toll makes it important enough & the article is good enough. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough due to the casualties/injuries and coverage. Article is good enough despite the 1 cn tag. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is reaaaally short, considering that the bits that are trying to give it length (part of the BG and the Reactions) are rather trivial or unnecessary. --M asem (t) 22:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now 21% shorter. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, prefer Alt. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2 after a wee tweak. Short, but good enough.  Schwede 66  07:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't there only 1 Hazara Express train? <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, . Probably three trains (and 3 is the minimum) to run this as a daily service. I’ve explained on the article's talk page how you work that out.  Schwede 66  16:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. It says on the page "Hazara Express is a passenger train". That made me think it was just one. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , in the distant past, I studied public transport system. That's how I know that; I suppose that puts me at an advantage.  Schwede 66  20:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand how, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose - A high death toll does not automatically translate to notability. Does not even feature once on the main pages of the BBC, CNN, Washington Post, DW, New York Times, Gulf News, and TNN. This is a horrible tragedy, but ITN isn't just a "high death toll disasters" ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't check all media outlets you mention, but yesterday this was top news on the BBC for hours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it has dropped off that much over such a small time frame then it doesn't have the significance to be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most stories that we post have never been top news on any media outlet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ITNATA, we specifically do not support/oppose based on placement (like appearing on front page or main pages) in a given work. M asem (t) 12:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but for a section literally called 'In The News' it does indicate the significance and notability of a story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As Kiril said, this certainly was frontpage, even the main story on BBC. While not the main story, it was frontpage on CNN as well. Also in Arguments to avoid it says "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important (...)" Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose. There's no indication that this is going to have any sort of lasting effect or that it's going to be covered in reliable sources years from now. This is not of encyclopedic significance. If we're posting this, we may as well post everything that has a BBC article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 13:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Front-page top news is very different from ‘everything that has a BBC article’. Also, whether this would be covered in reliable sources years from now is a crystal-ball reasoning. We never use future expectations as a determinant of significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So logically, if we're not allowed to predict future significance, then we shouldn't even have an article on this until after that significance is proven. Which, believe it or not, is exactly what is required by our notability guidelines. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, so it cannot require anything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I dare you to use that argument in a contentious AfD discussion. Seriously, I'm curious whether anyone would challenge it if you dropped it at Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat riot or Articles for deletion/List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose - As the others have said, what's the long-term significance of this item? What sort of impact does this have apart from being a tragedy or a disaster. Hard to see the news worthiness of this, particularly with the lack of depth of coverage. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post posting oppose Per all above. A premature posting for an item with little to no long term significance/coverage. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose/Pull This article feels considerably too short for the main page and has little demonstrated longer-term significance. Far too premature a posting. The Kip (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PP Support It's kinda on the edge, but transportation related disasters with this many fatalities are posted more often than not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS? I'd hope that a bit more goes into the rationale for posting than that. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MINIMUMDEATHS is not the sole criteria for these kinds of events. But it is a factor. How common are these kinds of mass casualty transportation related accidents? If they are fairly commonplace that would be a factor against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're making these "factors" up. !votes are expected to be based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you want these to be valid factors, then go to Village pump (policy) and raise the issue. Until then, they bear virtually zero weight in determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I think you are missing the point. This is not a discussion about the pages encyclopedic notability. It's about its suitability for ITN. And assuming article quality is up to scratch and there aren't any serious questions about WP:N, then the rest is largely subjective and you will find a broad range of opinions on some nominations. The so called MINIMUMDEATHS criteria is a popular bugaboo among some editors who get annoyed anytime casualties are discussed in a nomination. There is of course no such policy. But neither is there any policy or guideline which precludes the question of casualty figures being weighed by editors. Some do, some don't, and some get very upset with those of us who do give it any weight. Beyond that you will find some general consensus here and there regarding unofficial criteria based on experience and trends that sometimes go back years. For instance the bar for a death blurb has been getting slowly higher based on my ten plus years' experience around here. And generally a nomination that doesn't rate a stand alone article is stepping into the batter's box with two strikes against it. I've seen some get through. But not often. And so on. In the end, more than most other forums on the project, our criteria is highly subjective and what gets posted and what doesn't can often look terribly inconsistent. But as with almost all discussion on the pedia, CONSENSUS is the one determining criteria. And that is typically determined by those who show up. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't Pull There's a difference in the level of perceptible insult between suggesting the deaths of 30 people aren't worthy of commemorating like Mangeshkar's back here and putting them on the same level before (even unintentionally) signaling a "just kidding, yoink". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a memorial, and whether people died is not a factor in determining whether something is encyclopedic. Anyone who has a problem with that is just going to have to come to peace with it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's some good wishful thinking, in my opinion, cheers! But it's "unfortunately" and demonstrably not true. They can also argue at length to post MINIMUMDEATH and DAVIDBOWIE stories for years, as they have and as they will. The article is still too short, the rate of Pakistani rail death is still unlikely to change and (in hindsight) 13 hours wasn't long enough to hear all these Opposes. But what's done is done, it's now up to us to eventually accept it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, ANI could hear about certain editors (not you) engaging in repeat violations of the WP:NOT policy after multiple warnings... Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That has been me, in some similar enough situations, which resulted in a simmering of rage on my end and new disruption in others. Not true peace. That comes from serenity, and whether you "believe" it or not, the serenity prayer isn't exactly wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This not about being e memorial. And the issue is not encyclopedic notability. Questions of that sort can be addressed at AfD. This is about whether the event is sufficiently unusual and has received an adequate level of coverage to be promoted on the main page. Subject to article quality of course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That first one was probably my fault, "commemorate" has three meanings and I meant the first two. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting - Come on, now, if this happened in a western democracy, we'd post it. Let's not show our bias and pull it. Posting it was the right idea. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What a cheap rhetorical trick. We have had no shortage of posting disasters from countries outside the U.S., in fact we've actually been criticized for doing so excessively at times. Cheerio, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If this was in a western nation, most of the same people would have voted support, and most of the same people would have voted oppose. The only real difference is that the implied accusations of racism would be against the support voters ("western-centric!" "there's no way we would have posted this if it was in the developing world!") instead of against the oppose voters. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's plausible, it's also plausible the other way around. ITN is inherently biased in the way it functions but regionalism is a well-known factor (racism; wrong word in the wrong context fwiw). I understand where you're coming from, but it's not true for ITN, atleast from my experience. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk  ( t  愛  c ) 12:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support What Rockstone said. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Knockoff tricks are rhetorically cheaper, historically speaking. I'm not saying Walt appraised the original correctly. But if he did... InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people should take a deep breath here. Some of the comments are starting to take on an unpleasant edge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly... when isn't ITN unpleasant? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - No matter if you support pulling or not, I do think the decision to post this story was incredibly premature. Right now there are about 6 opposes to 7 supports yet it was put on the front page after only 13 hours without any consensus developing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. ITN consensus works differently, since time is of the essence, discussions usually last for >24 hours mostly only when there isn't a consensus, so in the closing admin's POV, there was consensus at the time of posting, let's not use procedural strawmans. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 12:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was posted only halfway through those 24 hours. I don't think a proper consensus can develop after only a few hours, not to mention that there were only 4 supports and 2 opposes at the time of posting (and the item would become very contentious later on), way too few. And if that's how ITN works then I very much disagree with it.
 * We shouldn't rush through a nomination just because "time is of the essence". I don't see what the time limit really was, if the item was going to roll off the notability scale after only a few hours then I don't think it was notable enough to post in the first place. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how I assessed the situation at the time I posted this item, . I looked at 4 supports (based on notability and the article being long enough), 1 oppose (based on article length), 1 comment (that the article was artificially bloated by irrelevant stuff) and a response to that comment that the article had been trimmed of the excess.  Schwede 66  20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, I think it was too early to post PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record If a fellow admin finds that I posted this prematurely, or without there having been consensus at the time of posting, or this having lost support since posting, then I won't lose any sleep over that.  Schwede 66  09:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gaddar

 * Oppose Article needs work. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some expansion is needed and sourcing needs work as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs some major work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still stubby with only 271 words of prose. And there are several {cn} tags, too. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Attention Needed) RD: Tristan Honsinger

 * Comment: Discography unreferenced; large section of the article body is an unreferenced quote.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Attention Needed) RD: Tudor Deliu

 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Lede mentions that he was a "professor and lecturer" but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hélène Carrère d'Encausse

 * Oppose for Now Her early life is uncited and the Russian scholarship section could use some more citations. Support all the uncited bits I mentioned look better now ❤History Theorist❤  22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uncited early life section, one cn tag in personal life and fully uncited/no ISBN bibliography. Needs work. Support Article looks alright now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll look tomorrow if nobody beats me to it. I wish the IP would nominate only after substantial refs are there.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked, and found it much better. I wonder why the books of such a prominent author can't be sourced. They must be in all libraries, no? I added two German sources to the early sections, which can be used for more. I have no more time today, but hope someone else has. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The FAZ article would have more detail, but it would be difficult to add to a section that speaks about her father back in Georgia and disappearing in one sentence, followed by relatives and their position in life today. - What the ref ("Schmid") has: "Her family lost "all" in the October revolution. In France, her father had to make money, first as a cab driver. The family spoke Russian, she learned English at age four. They survived the war in Bordeaux where her father was a translator for the Germans; he was possibly murdered by members of the résistance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * After having added these bits, I added myself to the updaters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added ill links to some works, and publishers. Someone with more time might add more bioliographic stuff from French, - isbn nos a minimum. Another question: the infobox has subdiscline modern history - which doesn't show. I have no idea if it is meant to mean what she studied or researched, also there should be a link, because the present redirect doesn't work anymore according to the talk page, and I looked it up and found it of little use anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While there's one cn tag, I don't think that should keep the article from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, knowing it can always get even better later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which it did. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Passes muster as is. But the w:fr article still has a lot of info (academic career, positions in various bureaucracies) that could be mined, translated, and brought over. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) Imran Khan sentenced

 * Support on Notability, Oppose on Quality This is an event covered by multiple international news networks and a former world leader was arrested, not just indicted. However, I think the linked article needs more citations. ❤History Theorist❤  03:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support alt blurb thanks @User:MonarchOfTerror for putting citations in the article! ❤History  Theorist❤  22:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is of woeful quality. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on Notability, Oppose on Quality Second what History Theorist said. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 17:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. Support on notability, however. The Kip (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality per above. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, but oppose on quality at the moment . If the article can improve its quality, this should be on ITN, as it is extremely important news that has made headlines globally. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The quality has sufficiently improved that I now support this without reservation as to the quality. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. See also this Guardian article about details of how he is now . Kirill C1 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Solely on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've fully sourced the article now.      can you all rereview the article quality? You guys can mark as (ready) as well if you want to. Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Imran Khan's article has a NPOV tag, but the other article is fine. Don't know whether this should prevent this from being posted, I suppose we could use the altblurb instead? I'm not really sure, so I'll defer to other editors to make the call. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The alt blurb makes more sense; the thing that's in the news is the result of the case. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I support alt. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the Toshakhana reference case article! I've struck all but the word "support" from my original !vote. I did notice the tag on the Imran Khan bio article, I'm also not sure what the best option is. It's hard to know what specific issue may exist when all we know is that someone thought it was NPOV in 2021. I haven't had the time to proofread the tagged section yet, but if it doesn't have any glaring issues, I say untag it as whoever tagged it probably should have done more to articulate what the issue was. As for which blurb to use, I agree that the bolded article we direct the attention to should be the case. <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> 💙 20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the NPOV tag still applies and the article still has issues. I only had a very quick read through but a sentence like "Following the visit, Khan repeatedly refused to condemn Russia's violations of international laws and war crimes, framing the refusal as Pakistan being independent, not amoral, and arguing by whataboutism, falsely referring to lack of requests for condemnation by India." definitely seems like a NPOV violation. That's only the one that seemed obvious, there may be more that are less easy to see. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Still not ready. Good referencing work, but some fierce editing of the prose is still needed. (eg: "The Toshakhana reference case was filed in the month of August against Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi by the politicians named Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha and others from the coalition government of Pakistan (2022), for not disclosing the information about the gifts given to Toshakhana and the supposed sales revenue that means he sold gifts directly in market without submitting in Toshakhana, Imran officially received from different head of states.") Moscow Mule (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Moscow Mule I did a very basic copy edit, but there are some points I’m unsure are mistakes or just Pakistani English. I would love it if someone more familiar with Pakistani English could also take a look at the article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Monarch: Brave effort, and I concur with your reluctance to change things "in case that's good and dandy in Pakistani English" (which is why I haven't touched it). I still find the narrative very hard to follow, though: eg, the last two paragraphs have (1) the High Court ruling the case inadmissible on 4 Jul and (2) the trial court (presumably a lower court than the High Court?) finding him guilty on 5 Aug. How does that work? Is there a step missing between those dates? However: it's an important story, and if the consensus is against me as drive-by detractor who's not been involved in the article, then I withdraw my objection. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Moscow Mule There was a lot of missing info, so I’ve added it. It seems like the high court didn’t say that the case was inadmissible, but rather asked the judge of the trial court to reevaluate Imran Khan's application to stop criminal proceedings because the reference was not maintainable. The judge evaluated that the reference was maintainable and that the criminal proceedings could continue, so it did. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Any admin willing to post this before it gets stale? Article looks acceptable to me now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Imran Khan has an orange bias tag. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, I wasn’t really sure if that would prevent this from being posted (was thinking of using alt might help since it isn’t bold linked then), but if it does then so it shall be. This will get archived/be stale soon anyway. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still got another day to get it up to par :). alt1 is probably ready, but I don't think unbolding the subject is a good idea. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the thing that is in the news is the arrest itself. When we posted the Trump indictment we didn’t bold link Trump even though he was the subject of the indictment (I of course know that WP:CCC is a thing, just saying). I suppose we’ll just have to hope the NPOV issues on Khan’s article is fixed soon. I would work on it but I have other irl obligations unfortunately :( Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bram Moolenaar

 * Question Are those reliable sources? If not, even his article probably shouldn't call him dead, less the mainpage. If so, though, it's just a bit stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Google Group announcement is from his family. Hacker News currently has a black bar, suggesting that it's likely not a hoax. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking if it's probably true, just whether it's verifiable, as Wikipedia understands it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The LWN reference should be sufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit dodgy to me, and certainly isn't a mainstream news outlet. But it is used in a few other other biographies here, so there's precedent, at least. I won't oppose this, but can't support. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that LWN is a reliable source for this and free software related news in general. Legoktm (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This two-month old noticeboard discussion seems to agree with you, as it pertains to articles and software. But forum posts and death? Hard to judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make. Bram is the creator and BDFL of one of the most popular free software tools, so the fact he died is a free software news topic, something LWN is a RS for. Legoktm (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying an article is not a forum post, software development isn't death and a benevolent dictator for life is not relevant to whether any source of online information is good enough here for a claim about a probable WP:BDP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some more coverage today: The Register, The New Stack, TNW. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I used the middle one for the update. If you think another one is more reliable or informative, go for it. But they're all closer to secondary coverage than the other day's announcements. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD. It appears reliable enough now but definitely post whenever that's clear. Skynxnex (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Additional reliable coverage ArsTechnica. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Alexei Navalny sentenced

 * Oppose - Not really a surprise. We don't post prison sentence extensions unless they have widespread significance, in this case this really will have no immediate impact. You could also make an argument this is being covered by ongoing.
 * As for the Russian wiki posting it, that doesn't really help notability. As I've pointed out to other editors, most Wikipedias associated with a certain area (in our case it's the Anglosphere) will naturally place an increased emphasis on news relating to that area, as sources surrounding the event will be most covered in the regional language. WP:DUEWEIGHT has more on this. So, it makes sense that the Russian Wikipedia would post a news story like this that mostly relates to Russia. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * it's clear.--СтасС (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The event doesn't seem to have much significance since it's just an extension and it seems par for the course when it comes to Russian politics. I've fixed the formatting of the blurb and also added an altblurb in case consensus favors posting. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help!--СтасС (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe we did not post the previous times that Navalny was incarcerated or had his sentence extended, and while I personally think we probably should have posted the initial incarceration, I'm not sure that this particular extension is quite as notable. However, if this leads to notable protests (such as the 2021 protests which were posted), then we can certainly reconsider this. I won't mark this comment as a !vote for or against it because I don't truly have strong feelings one way or another here (I guess you could consider this a Neutral/Mixed !vote?), but I appreciate the good faith nomination even if I am skeptical about its odds at reaching a consensus in favor of posting. Best wishes, <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith, but just an extension of an already-in-place sentence. The Kip (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic information but falls under internal politics which generally is not posted except for elections, changes in government, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's technically law, but yeah, law gets politicized. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Kai Cenat riot

 * Support Sure, because apparently that's a thing that happened This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment To me, it seems that the two articles ought to be merged before anything else should happen.  Schwede 66  05:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Photo This may or may not be an appropriate blurb, but there's something fundamentally wrong with posting pictures of alleged criminals smiling. Try to find something free depicting the riot instead, or an injury, or a mugshot. Something indicating impact (barring that, just use words). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 new york city union square 2010.JPG I had a feeling the photo would draw some ire. Would this photo of Union Square suffice instead? — Knightof  theswords  06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not irate, I just find it incongruous. This square pic isn't smiling, but it doesn't seem affected by the recent event, either. It's just a photo of the past for photo's sake, methinks, no big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that seems to be the best, most recent full view of Union Square available on commons. Also, the photo of Cenat isn't of him smiling, it's a screenshot of him in a video while he's speaking. — Knightof  theswords  07:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but his teeth are showing (which looks happier in the thumbnail than up close). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Union Square, New York sounds like a small town on the mainland not one of Manhattan's most important town squares. Suggest New York City instead of New York and dropping the United States. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, it is local news. And moreover, it is very much so. The impact is irrelevant beyond the injured and the arrested. And the interest, very little. Not even the streamer responsible is one of the best known. Not all news that enjoys international coverage is because it is really important (and this has been made clear many, many times). Worst riots that have happened have not been posted. That it happened in New York and the police activated the alert is circumstantial. Just one more news item of the week that will change few people's lives. Friendly advice: switch to the international news channel. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 9 injuries. Nothing more than local news. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alsor and Anarchyte are right, this is hype, and the suspects are mostly children. There's a moral dilemma about hyping up kids as mobsters, even without naming names, plus no jury in the state would throw the book at them (these days). So probably a bunch of local slaps on the wrist; I'm out. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial event with no long term impact, which falls well below standard for ITN. One for DYK. 2A00:23EE:1468:55DF:B529:DEDE:C567:6243 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Anarchyte and Alsor. This doesn’t have any impact and isn’t notable despite being widely reported. It’s great that it meets one of the points in WP:ITNPURPOSE but it still needs to meet ITN’s minimum significance standard (whatever that actually is at this point). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen Xtravaganza

 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support A little thin and needs a copyedit, but sufficient for our purposes. Spot-checked the sources, birth date cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Adrienne Vaughan

 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments: This wikibio could use some restructuring/reorganization (WP:LEAD). The lede has too many footnotes and minor details that should be placed in the main prose. The death section is too long, has too much speculative details, and no date. --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dalia Fadila

 * Support The views section feels a bit off and there’s one clarification needed tag, but article is fine otherwise. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mikhail Nikolayev

 * Oppose the article needs quite a bit of citation work and while this doesn't influence my nomination much, I think the writing on the article needs improvement as well. ❤History Theorist❤  03:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Ogletree

 * Oppose Article needs some major ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Articles needs a lot of work, 3 orange tags and tons of cn tags. These tags need to be adressed meaning sourcing improvements and fixing the lede. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Panna Kaiser

 * Oppose Article is a stub, needs expansion. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per MonarchOfTerror. Article is a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tater Tot (cat)

 * Weak Support The article seems to be a bit thin on info, but at least this one is well cited. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(ATTENTION NEEDED) RD: Myron Goldfinger

 * Oppose I’m not typically not too strict on this, but too short, needs some expansion. Also a pretty big gap between last information in the article and his death. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping to expand it. It looks ready to me. What do you think? Thriley (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been improved. Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Margolis

 * Oppose Filmography needs ref work and his career section could be expanded covering his career from the 1950s–1980s and 2000s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've done a lot of work, but still a good amount of uncited info 2 uncited tv shows and 1 uncited film left. I’ve expanded career section and rest of the article is adequately sourced. Almost there. If worst comes to worst we can comment out/remove the unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now regretfully as there's still gaps in sourcing. Many thanks to MonarchOfTerror and anyone else who worked on the page recently for significantly improving the referencing, it's looking much better than it was earlier today. Hoping that it'll get up to shape soon. May he rest in peace 🛎️ <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> 💙 23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support He's a reknown actor with a veteran acting career since the 1960s, most notably Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul and Scarface. GodzillamanRor (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support considerable updates since the last oppose vote.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, I see one or two missing refs but I'll consider this acceptable. --Tone 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Irina Miroshnichenko

 * Oppose Too stubby, needs significant expansion. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Barnes

 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur Also an American burglar and rapist, aged 61 (for the record). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted with disambiguation. Too many people with this name to confidently post it solely as "James Barnes". There's also Jimmy Barnes (real name James Barnes), who is one of the best selling Australian musicians. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That draws a lot of attention, how about James P. Barnes instead? That should exclude a lot of false matches. - Indefensible (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the disambiguation, then having seen the suggestion above, have added the middle initial. A far better look IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Looks good. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Delano Lewis

 * Support Article is sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur American attorney, businessman and diplomat, aged 84 (for the record). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Davis

 * Comment After a ton of work I've basically fully sourced the article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good now No glaring "however", "would" nor directions ending in "wards", neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  06:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ijaz Butt

 * Support One cn tag but sufficient otherwise. Don't think the one cn tag should prevent it from being posted. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've removed the sentence with the cn tag as it's not really relevant to his biography. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as it looks good to go. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The lede section mentions the subject's business career in footwear and tires, but there is no elaboration in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. What a great and disguised way of keeping it from getting posted. WP:GEOBIAS much. 119.157.74.100 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did the "disguised way" come from? Was it my fault that the wikibio was poorly structured? Anyway, it's now posted by Stephen (and I almost got an edit conflict). --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Fitch Ratings downgrades U.S credit rating

 * Oppose this does not seems significant, because so what if some company decided to downgrade American credit, this has no major global impact, and the article is linked to another, and needs a lot of work (that section only has two sentences),Editor 5426387 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is significant. Downgrading the US credit rating resulted in a decline on the financial markets and will inevitably raise the interest rates. Considering the size and impact of the US economy, this will have global spill-over effects.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that relevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- did we post the last time this happened, back in 2011? Things were different then, but I'm curious now. Regardless, I don't think this news is more important than Trump's 3rd indictment, which we didn't post, so I'm going to suggest we don't post this, either. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did (the interlink can't be rendered because the title includes square brackets).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that previous listing alone qualifies this for ITN/R. Accordingly, Support on quality. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Part of the day to day US political news. --M asem (t) 12:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. While a great item for politicians on the campaign trail for the 2024 election to latch onto, the impact and consequences of the bond rating downgrade are a bit too subtle to be felt and well-understood in the sense of newsworthiness. That the stock market would drop after such an event is not a surprise, but the stock market wavers up and down all the time. It had zoomed earlier in July after the outlook for a recession seemed less bleak than economists originally predicted. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, though I work in the financial services industry myself and find this a little bit interesting, this is a niche finding with little fanfare and a lot of time passed since the main impetus (though Fitch has other more long term reasons for the downgrade!). This point is made here by Bloomberg's Matt Levine: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-08-02/the-us-is-more-aa-now (great article, non-financial people will definitely be able to read this, i strongly recommend his column!). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, why do my comments get indented even when I reply to the original post? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WaltCip, it’s a single company doing so and this stock market fluctuates constantly. Also, a reminder yet again that noms don’t need a dozen+ sources and a paragraph explanation. The Kip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This occurs normally in the US economic news, it's not worthy of coverage. Rager7 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sherry Combs Johnson

 * Support Article is fine, no major problems. It’s formatted quite weirdly though. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  06:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shams Buneri

 * Oppose Needs significant expansion, way too short. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Still too stubby with only 124 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Doksuri

 * Support once fatalities confirmed as the estimates are very high. The target article seems to be lengthy enough and thoroughly sourced. <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> 💙 01:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Vanilla Wizard ❤History Theorist❤  01:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Thorough and put together, great article to read for a hurricane geek.  Heart  (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now no victims reported. Yet. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Several dozen victims have been reported. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 16:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not what the proposal blurb says. It should be updated. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just being lazy. If it's that big a deal, just update it yourself instead of complaining about it not being updated. <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 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to update a blurb on a topic whose nominator is more fluent. Don't come to bother me. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Stale since it's past the one-week marker for the sources related to the deaths and is older than the most current blurb in the template.
 * <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 16:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The hurricane dissipated on July 29. The oldest current blurb mentioned Nero’s theatre being discovered, which was on July 27. 82.193.210.78 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the dissipation date is not the date used here... The news sources date from July 27 and 28 which was a week ago. <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 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The dissipation date is not important - the post-dissipation flooding in China would be eligible for its own article if not for the fact that it fits conveniently in the typhoon article, and I think that alone is sufficiently important to merit an ITN posting. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Try this source? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Despite the fact that I have been following the ongoing tropical cyclone seasons on a daily basis, it never crossed my mind to actually nominate this last week for some reason. But better late than never. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  12:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nitin Chandrakant Desai

 * Oppose Needs better sourcing, with the usual suspects lacking them, being the filmography and awards/nominations section. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that this needs ref work  Heart  (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Too much unreferenced materials. Five {cn} tags in prose. Filmography and Awards sections largely unsourced. Please add more footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Haryana riots

 * Support Article looks to be in good shape, news sources are covering the events. Checks all of the boxed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose on quality, Support on notability. A few NPOV-related tags and one failed verification, but length is good and article seems fully-reffed. Proposed a better-worded altblurb - counting the three civilians, two policemen, and deputy imam, that’s six deaths, not five. The Kip (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading into it a little more, there’s a good bit of loaded language in the article that needs editing to a NPOV. The Kip (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - receiving extensive news coverage from both domestic and to an extent foreign news outlets and is in decent shape. Seems to meet all of the criteria of WP:ITNPURPOSE; there are lots of Indian users of enwiki who could be looking for this, the article is in decent shape, and for those who aren't aware of the story, it can still serve to be an interesting story. All this serves to emphasize the dynamism of ITN as well. — Knightof  theswords  18:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article accurately details and covers a current event.   Rager7 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notability, and the article is not suitable for the Main Page at the moment; apart from some borderline BLP issues and uncited contentious statements, there is lots of wording that is incomprehensible to non-Indians and is not linked ("au rakshaks", "cow vigilantism", "Mahapanchayat", "shoba yatra", "Brij Mandal Jalabhishek Yatra", "Shiv Mandir" etc.) Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I really want to believe that “cow vigilantism” refers to cows themselves committing vigilante acts, but unfortunately I fear that’s not the case. The Kip (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, neutral on notability Article has some NPOV issues, needs better sourcing and needs to be rewritten so that it's is more accessible to a wider audience. I'm not quite sure on notability just yet. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This seems to be ITN-worthy due to the news coverage, however, I would suggest changing the blurb to "Five are killed during a mosque fire in a series of religious riots in Haryana, India" because that would make more sense. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is twofold - six are dead, and nobody was killed in the fire itself. The Kip (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alrtblurb 3 seems to most concisely summarize the point.2607:9880:2D28:108:E1B1:8AA3:B2A3:4FD (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article seems good. Fahads1982 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article's neutrality is in question. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I fixed two tags and seems good enough to be posted now. 59.103.198.122 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article still needs extensive copyediting/revisions before being blurbed. Some wording is loaded/biased, the lede is far too long, and there’s still an excess of terms unfamiliar to non-Indian readers. The Kip (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has largely been improved since yesterday as far as NPOV is concerned. 119.157.74.100 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is very popular on South Asia and this is a big deal for them. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event reported both domestically and abroad, issues regarding the quality of the article have been largely resolved. Golem08 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly orange-tagged and the talk page suggests the push-and-pull will get worse before it gets better. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt3&mdash;I think the article's quality is good enough for a blurb at this time. Kurtis (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is a mess, there's some edit warring on the article, and it seems like a specific POV is being pushed given the article edit history. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Henrietta Lacks settlement

 * Neutral. Interesting subject that arguably has relevance to medical research/ethics worldwide, and the article is a GA, but we only have two measly sentences on the Fisher Scientific lawsuit. Given that this was a settlement with undisclosed terms and the company declined to give any more information to news outlets, I am not sure we can expect any more information on the matter to become public anytime soon. So I am reluctant to fully support, but I will not oppose either. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would love to see this as a blurb, but it seems the Lacks article's lead hasn't been updated to reflect the lawsuit settlement, and I agree with what the IP editor said earlier -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Impossible to determine significance/impact/whatever with undisclosed terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InedibleHulk. An interesting story and perhaps impactful, but as society has made advancements in the realm of patient rights in the past 70 years, this settlement is probably less noteworthy then it would have been had it been paid out earlier on. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The family only sued in 2021. M asem (t) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We can only presume someone got paid. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support High quality article, news coverage is appropriate, the only thing keeping me from fully supporting this is the update, which consists of a single sentence. Otherwise, I would be proud to put this in front of front-page visitors.  If someone could expand the update on today's developments to a more appropriate depth (at least 3-4 good sentences about the verdict settlement and its relevance) I think this would be a full support from me, easily.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no verdict, it was a civil suit settled out of court (hence the secrecy). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So corrected. Thanks for letting me know the correct verbiage.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm unable to see the impact of this as relevant beyond the country and the circles involved. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lawsuit settlement isn't particularly important. It's the HeLa human cell line that's more important, but sadly that's not what's in the news. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I actually learned about her in my freshman biology class and have since done some more research. One of the stated goals of ITN is to
 * "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."The story of Lacks and the HeLa cell line is a fairly fascinating story; the controversy surrounding the extraction of her cancer cells, a critical and well studied source in medical research, has persisted for years and will likely affect the relationship between scientific studies and patient privacy for years on end. This would also be a great chance to get a GA on ITN. — Knightof  theswords  18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is all a good reason to consider posting, but the section is still called "in the news." We need a bit more on recent events. Might I suggest that in 3 days we'll have some "day two stories" on this to flesh out impact?  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of other non-disclosure agreements last literally forever, but the next few days are within "the new normal", so I'll flip if something "unprecedented" comes out. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral On one hand her discovery cancer cells can be relevant in the modern scientific field. However, she discovered it some time ago which can make irrelevant. Rager7 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, you might wanna review the article again.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her scientific discovery happened back in the 1950s hence not worthy of ITN coverage.  Rager7 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * She did not discover anything, Rager7. Cancer cells from her body were taken by others and propagated and used without her knowledge or consent. That is the entire point of the lawsuit that this blurb is actually about. I'm surprised, and frustrated, that you're comfortable commenting on this without making some minimal effort to understand what is going on. I'm really trying not to be a jerk here, but this page has enough problems without drive-by information-free "votes".  You're welcome here, Rager7, but you need to put some effort in to understand what you're talking about. People can make mistakes, but this wasn't a misunderstanding; you didn't read any of the links provided here. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, next time I'll try at least reading the blub before voting. Rager7 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Seems interesting and definitely a different kind of story from what we usually post but I can’t really see the significance. Nice that the article is a GA though. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose with regret. The backstory is fascinating and the article is in decent shape. But the legal business which is the reason for the blurb is all of two sentences. And as noted above, the long-term significance is unclear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To put this in a different way, the long term significance has already been established (being the importance of the HeLa line); thus would be the same reason we post convictions because of what happened in the past. M asem (t) 22:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the HeLa are the important thing, that should be the target article. We don't know how or if this agreement (whatever it was) will affect the cells and all the work they do. But we know Henrietta Lacks is unaffected, despite the symbolic whatever of "justice" coming on "her 103rd birthday". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Same logic can be used to oppose convictions too. All the crimes were in the past, nothing in the future will be affected, so we shouldn't post them. It's bad logic. M asem (t) 12:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mariana Sîrbu

 * Oppose Needs significant sourcing work. Support Sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added myself as updater. I found an obit in English, but the facts were almost all there in the sources given, just not inline, - each ref only for one fact although containing a more or less complete bio. It would be so easy to simply check such a thing before complaining that ton's of citations are needed. - I'll return for another round later today, searching for more details of playing, recording, colleagues, reviews. Who wants the laundry lists of famous halls and countries where she gave masterclasses? She seems to have been a notable international performer, especially in chamber music in Italy - less glamourous, sadly, than solo playing - and should have an entry. I need food first - help in the search wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Sometimes, I will work on an article before !voting, but the other times I just check what's already there, sometimes adding relevant tags so that editors can know what to work on. Participation in RD is quite low anyway so I try my best to review as many articles as possible, it would take too much time to work on all of them before reviewing, it is what it is. It's great that you do though, very admirable! Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I found reviews and family. Please look again. - I wasn't criticising you, btw, but the IP who nominated prematurely. We had a similar case a while ago, which received several opposes before I even woke up to her death. It's then tough to call them all to re-review. This one, I noticed early and put her on my to-do (on my user page), and had to postpone her to after a busy weekend, - that's what made it all late, but I have this simple rule of not beginning more than one per day. - Checking what's already there: one step more could be to click on a ref and see if it is good for more than the one facts where it sits. - I need a break now. Thank you for all you do around ITN. I was surprised to find that you just joined ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks good now! "She also took part in international music festivals." is uncited, but it shouldn't prevent the article from being posted. Change my !vote to support. I'll try my best to check the refs themselves for future reviews, thanks for the advice. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Geneviève de Fontenay

 * Weak oppose Two statements need citations. Would also prefer less paragraphs with just one citation at the end, but it is what it is. Support Looks good now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There are more {cn} tags now. Googling fetches quite a few online French articles on her. Perhaps this nom could use some help from people who know the French language with ref-checks and/or expansion of this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Zero {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dương Văn Ngộ

 * Support looks adequately cited and is long enough ❤History Theorist❤  22:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robbie Shepherd

 * Support Sufficient coverage of his life, material cited.  Bremps  ...  18:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Short but adequate. No significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support though short, the article is adequately cited and works for RD. However, bibliography should be cited. ❤History Theorist❤  22:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * iirc ISBNs are enough for a bibliography. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  23:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As a newer user, didn't know that. ❤History Theorist❤  23:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I’m quite new too, I only knew because I worked on the article for Namboothiri and the problem that was keeping it from posting was an uncited bibliography, to which I added ISBNs and it was posted with just ISBNs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  23:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henri Konan Bédié

 * Support Article looks well sourcing wise. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  23:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we could talk a little more about his six-year term as president of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Long enough and well sourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump indictment

 * Oppose on quality Article is a stub. Kinda iffy about supporting it in general as this not his first indictment. While this is big news in American media, not sure if it's big news on the global stage. Let's get this article into good shape first. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose He. Is. Indicted. Not. Condemned. I don't know how many times this needs to be said. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who cares? It's In The News. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose already posted the first time he was indicted. Also, charges are still sealed so we have no idea how many or for what. my bad they have since been unsealed --M asem (t) 22:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While I can be convinced, this isn’t the first time he’s been indicted, and it feels somewhat unnecessary to post again. The Kip (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Unless this becomes something huge or results in Trump's arrest, I don't think posting Trump is indicted again is ITN worthy. ❤History Theorist❤  22:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support once article is expanded. I think that it's a mistake for the nominator to say that it's making headlines in all major American media, it's also appearing in global media like the BBC and the Sydney Morning Herald. I do agree with the opposers in that it's kinda ridiculous the number of times, we've posted him being indicted. I nonetheless think that this is going to be not just in the news, but it will be the news for the next several days (barring anything major). Wikipedia should not be the 'Trump legal affairs tracker', but what happened on January 6, 2021 (and the entirety of the aftermath of the 2020 election) was not only relatively unprecedented and a shock to the United States, but a shock to the world as well. The indictment of the sitting President at the time on charges relating to attempts to overturn the election (ie. an attempt at an autocoup) is global news without a doubt in my mind. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose We posted the previous two indictments. The first one might have been justified by the novelty of a former US President being criminally indicted. But we are way past that. The next post involving Trump's legal issues should be a verdict. We are not the Trump News Network. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — In Trump news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose if any of the indictments were notable or worth posting it's probably this one, but at this point that ship has sailed. come back when there's a verdict. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- about as "In The News" as any story can possibly be. Not posting this just makes Wikipedia look out of touch and/or pro-Trump. It's news people want to follow. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. No one arguing this is doing it solely because they are a follower of Trump or serving on his behalf; I don't support Trump or this nomination. Wikipedia is a global environment—encompassing the people that you mention—that can't be dominated by U.S. internal news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, it makes it look like Wikipedia is protecting Trump by not posting what the rest of the world is talking about. It's not the US's fault that Trump commits a lot of crimes and is a high profile figure (well... I suppose it is, since he won the 2016 election), and I don't think it's valid reason not to post in ITN. If a story of a similar magnitude were posted about Boris Johnson or another former head of government, and was making international headlines, I'd support it just as vigorously as I support posting this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already posted the first two indictments he had, we'll post if he's convicted or arrested, we don't need to post the third indictment, which has no novelty aspect to it. AryKun (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about him. He is insignificant to this, per se. It is about the former POTUS and the historic indictments that this unique alleged criminal is producing due to his actions. There is no reptition here. Only to those who cannot see the unique and individual nature of each of these indictements as they relate to USA, its government, and The Office of the President of the United States. Your bias on the "trump" factor in this, is irrelevant to the true definition of "in the news", which this inarguably rises to the threshold. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Trump, this has everything to do with the United States, its government, and The Office of the POTUS. Trump has produced historic and unique indictements by his actions, for the USA, its governments, and The Office of the POTUS. This is weak and repeated opposition logic, "that this is too much trump news, it's all the same, it doesn't matter, just wait, I don't think it's such a big deal, etc. etc."... while the rest of us live in the real world (no offense) where this is actually beyond-the-pale, severe, and "so very in-the-news" on its own merits. So please, spare us these nonsense excuses that have no legs. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the USA produces the most "in the news" news then that is what should dominate it. This isn't a democracy... what are you on about? Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The United States is not the only country in the world, nor does it "produce the most news". There is an American exceptionalism to news that appears on English Wikipedia that doesn't represent the world. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish this point of yours, Elijah, were in the majority. But unlikely that the hyper-patriotic mentality of American society is capable of seeing beyond its borders. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, get off your soapbox. This has nothing to do with patriotism or American exceptionalism, and everything to do with the fact that a former head of state and head of government is being charged with serious crimes that could result in 500+ years in prison, in country where this has never happened before. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it would be great if you didn’t misquote somebody so poorly (in quotes!) that it completely transforms the meaning of what they wrote so that you could respond to an argument nobody made. Though it is a bit funny to see an aye aye to such a blatant strawman. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this was the lead item on the New Zealand 6pm news that I watched last night.  Schwede 66  19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Provisional support as major news, but article need to be cleaned up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits. We rightly did not post the charges added to the previous indictment, but this is related to the worst attack on American democracy in history. This is a no brainer. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with above editors; every single indictment against him shouldn't be nominated for in the news. Yeoutie (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The most important of the indictments against him in my view. It is also the lead story globally. Davey2116 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What the hell has changed? Is he serving time in prison? No... Oppose until a verdict comes in any of the cases. It seems the world has a hard-on for anything to do with Donald Trump, and we shouldn't reflect that since ITN isn't Donald Trump in the news. ITN is not a news ticker. We have had enough blurbs regarding indictments these past few months and shouldn't post another since it's not a big deal anymore. The first one was and the second one less so... the third? Well, should I say more? The only thing worthy of posting now would be a verdict. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose, per uhh.. WP:HAMSANDWICH — xaosflux  Talk 01:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Simply put, it's In The News. It's the top story pretty much everywhere and related to other significant events of recent years (January 6 United States Capitol attack and Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election). It's true that this is already Trump's third indictment in just a few months but it is what it is. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - yeah its the top story right now but its just another notch in the existing legal issues facing Donald Trump story. Would be more apt to add Donald Trump indictments and trials to ongoing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This one is the cherry on top of the sundae. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dont really see how this is much more than an update to the special counsel investigation, which we already posted when they first indicted Trump. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I recognize that this may face an uphill battle as it was not the first time we posted a Trump indictment. It wasn't even the second indictment of his that we posted. And, chances are, this won't be his last, either. But I would argue that the shear number of these cases does not make them less extraordinary (you could easily argue the opposite, especially considering that each indictment seems to bring increasingly severe charges). I recognize that most of us, myself included, have grown exhausted, tired, and even numb to the barrage of news stories related to Trump that we've seen in the last eight years, and as a result many of us ITN regulars are understandably deathly allergic to any news story with him in it. But at the end of the day, it is the top news story yet again, and it remains an extraordinary situation that's in the news and has a decent quality wiki article. <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> 💙 02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This isn't the first indictment, but it's the most serious. It's In the News around the world and we're not gonna post it because we're tired of posting Trump news? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's worldwide news, for example here in Canada, it's the entire top section of CBC News. Readers will be looking for this story and it is silly for ITN to pretend it's not. Article is of sufficient quality. In terms of merit, it's by far the most serious of the indictments, including possible invocation of the Insurrection Act . -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also proposed a shorter and more correct altblurb that doesn't imply the court is the one doing the indicting. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Part of me regrets my past opposition to the indictments. I kinda go back and fourth on those ones. The NY case really read off as more like celebrity drama and the whole "first" argument rang quite hollow to me. However, this is a case with very clear consequences about a high-profile incident that is still fresh in the collective mind of the public. Sure, it's just an indictment and not a court ruling, but it is still very clearly in the news. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose let's post when there is a conviction YD407OTZ (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- This indictment is specifically targeting the Jan 6 attack and will inevitably play out differently than the case in Florida. I expect this will be discussed at great length by legal scholars and political commentators for the days to come. Furthermore this will invariably impact the upcoming 2024 presidential election of which the world will be paying attention to. 	FictiousLibrarian (talk). 04:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This indictment is specifically targeting the Jan 6 attack It is not. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although this may be serious, this is not the first time Trump got indicted, and it's just another part of the legal troubles facing Trump, and this may affect Trump and maybe his supporters, but I don't see the long-term effects this has. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Man gets charged with crime" is hardly that what we would consider noteworthy enough to go into ITN. IF he was convicted (and he may well be found innocent by a jury), yes that's a story we should cover, but a simple inducement is just something mundane.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You'd be right, if the man in question wasn't the former leader of the free world. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't !voted on this nomination, but this indictment is certainly not "mundane". Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't blurb someone getting merely charged with a crime. I prefer not to see "allegedly" in ITN. Also, this is the third indictment on this man in the past year. Are we going to have six blurbs on the front page? Three on indictments and three on convictions? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support -- This is "THE" indictment. The most important of the 3 thus far. The other 2 were posted, and this, being the more serious of them arguably, should then logically be posted. Furthermore, just because a particular individual is unique enough in his criminality that he produces numerous indictments does not mean that repeated indictments are repetitions strictly because they are centered on him. Quite the opposite, as a former POTUS, each one of these has been incredibly significant and historic on their own merits as they pertain to The Office of the President of the United States. Opposition to the historicity of this indictment and the purely "in the news" aspect of it, is unwarranted as this is actually very much "in the news". These should be reasons enough to post this story. The opposition statements above are very much the same weak logic and reasoning as with the previous 2 indictments- weak logic and reasoning which was addressed in the admin's posting blurb (whatever that's called) as to why those were not good enough reasons to object to the story being posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's only six weeks since we posted the last one. We're not a Trump indictment ticker, or we shouldn't be.  We shouldn't have posted the previous ones, and we shouldn't post this one.  Conviction yes, indictment no. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Take a look at Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president which seems to contain about 100 different cases. There's so many of them that we should not be posting a blow-by-blow of each stage in such courtroom drama.  If you want to do that then it should be an Ongoing nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind an "ongoing" nomination, but it would look weird. Certainly once the trial starts (probably the trial of the millennium), we'll want to have it there. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can file a civil lawsuit for whatever they want. A civil lawsuit is not in any way comparable to a criminal indictment. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Muboshgu and Zombie Philosopher. We can't reject this just because there are other cases: this is the most important one by far. A former president of the US charged in relation to an attempted insurrection is far more significant than the weak New York case, which got a blurb. This is the the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president, in history (quoting our article). This is The Big One (LawFare, The Guardian). It's a turning point in the US's democratic backsliding, which will define the future of American democracy (NYT). In case anybody still cares about WP:ITNSIGNIF: it's being covered, in-depth, by the highest-quality news media in the US, Germany, France, and Spain; none are reprints of wire services, and I checked in Incognito mode so none are personalized to me. The articles are long and provide analysis. Most of these outlets had multiple stories on it, not just one. The article is well-above WP:ITNQUALITY, and every single statement is cited. This isn't related to any previous occurrences, and we're well-above the criteria of three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. Most opposes argue that charges (vs. convictions) aren't ITN-worthy, or that there's a soft-limit to how many times we should cover Trump. These criteria are arbitrary, and not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT. If you think they should be criteria, feel free to propose them on the talk page; but they're not. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How bold is ignorance. To say that "charges (vs. convictions)" is an arbitrary criterion is simply to be ignorant of how judicial proceedings work and how criminal responsibility is attributed. And there, unless we are jurists or actors in the criminal case, it is inamobile. No matter how American the protagonist may be. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You might maybe possibly have a point if anybody were talking about a criterion for how criminal responsibility is attributed and not for whether or not something is in the news. But since we arent attributing criminal guilt to anybody here, you might want to not be so bold. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, and just maybe, if this wasn't an encylopedia and it was Fox News. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused as to what portion of the encyclopedia youre editing. This is "In the News", a place where people nominate and consider including links to articles that readers are looking for more information on because it is in the news. That has jack to do with a conviction. Or with whatever you think youre saying with the Fox News reference? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's headline news everywhere, which is all that matters. Also, on the merits, it's by far the most important of the various indictments: it's an important political rather than legal development because it sets up a number of potential political and legal conflicts as Trump is tried while being a leading candidate for the presidency.  Sandstein   12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose or we'll be posting these all year long. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem and Black Kite. At this point his indictments are almost status quo... ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support event more widely in the news than any other current news item. Oppose rampant fallacious arguments at ITN/C about convictions versus indictments. Two questions matter: is it in the news, and is the article good enough quality? Arguments not based on that rubric should be discarded. Nableezy’s subtle point that this should be ongoing rather than a blurb is a legitimate argument. I support either ongoing or blurb. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as it's a fundamental indictment on the obstruction of democratic election results in the United States. I don't buy the arguments that it shouldn't make it because of other indictments. If Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) is seen as too weak right now, may I suggest linking to January 6 United States Capitol attack may provide some strength? -- Natural  R <sub style="color: #000000">X  12:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only would linking to it would be a major WP:EASTEREGG unless you could somehow change or contort the blurbs to make it the focus of the event, but it's also not the primary story. The news isn't the attack itself, now a stale occurrence as it happened three years ago, rather it's Donald Trump's legal troubles as a result of events that occurred surrounding and partially including the attack. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; in general we have usually only posted the final part of a criminal proceeding (conviction and/or sentencing) and not all of the other phases of the criminal justice process. Wait until a conviction, then post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Former US President indicted" is now firmly in "dog bites man" territory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, since Trump indictments are no longer as interesting as a "man bites dog" headline, since he's already been indicted and impeached multiple times. If Trump gets arrested and/or convicted regarding this, only then I'll support the nomination.
 * <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it's only an indictment and it is very unclear whether or not this will lead to conviction. Will support if convicted.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If convicted, certainly that ought to be posted. While a former President being indicted is somewhat of a first (Nixon only escaped through the skin of his teeth) a conviction would truly be a first in the entire history of the country. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's probably gonna get indicted more times this year. It's really pointless to post every time he gets indicted in my opinion.  TomMasterReal  TALK 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment as an addendum to my above oppose, it's very hard to read through the majority of supports in this discussion and not see this nomination as a pretty glaring example of the oft discussed problem of systemic bias on the project. Are we going to start posting criminal indictments for other former heads of government/state? I am not holding my breath. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Three current government ministers and the president of a deposed president's party were arrested the other day, not even nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is what you're referring to part of ? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It followed that, perhaps closely enough to ignore now, perhaps not. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indeliblehulk: Then that's your fault you didn't nominate it. Don't blame anyone else.  Nothing happens at Wikipedia you don't do yourself.  If you want to see it on the front page, you can't blame anyone except yourself that you didn't put it there.  Demanding that other people should have done work you couldn't be bothered to do yourself is pretty low.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't blame anyone, want anything or demand anyone else do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's an apples to oranges comparison for reasons you seem to have acknowledged. We posted the coup that deposed the government and established a military junta. That other members of the government besides the President of Niger were also sacked and taken into the custody of the military junta is kind of necessarily a part of the same story that we blurbed and is a poor comparison to make to argue it'd be systemic bias to post about criminal charges against Trump but not the Nigerien ministers. The Nigerien ministers weren't even charged with anything in particular, at least not according to the article you posted. Please don't suggest (intentionally or otherwise) that it was a failing of ITN to not nominate that story and an example of bias that we nominated this one. The whole comparison to the events in Niger is a red herring. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't be held responsible for things I don't intend to suggest. I also can't make any direct comparisons to support my intended point, because of a topic ban. Suffice to say this is not a red herring nor argument against systemic bias; just letting Ad Orientem know about roughly the sort of thing he suggested we'd be less apt to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support - this is THE indictment, the one relating to the events leading up to January 6, the one that many of you stated would be the indictment that you would support. Headline news everywhere and will almost certainly have major ramifications regarding the 2024 presidential election. Yes, we've posted two indictments in the past, but its not our fault that he has this many issues with the court; if three colossal sized asteroids collided with Earth, would we not post the third one because "we've already posted the prior two" (besides, irking 's specific claim of we'll be posting these all year long, well, that probably has more to do with ITN's slowness than anything else)? — Knightof  theswords  18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fact that the previous two were really really important as well, but disappeared completely from news sites within a few days, not to be seen again (until the actual court cases)? Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me if you don't have something to say to me directly. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know that pings the mentioned user. I thought it was a way to not ping users while still linking and highlighting them. —  Knightof  theswords  05:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Use noping for that. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trump has been indicted multiple times these past few months, with a few new indictments on the way. This event is part of a broader theme of "Trump in legal trouble" that ITN has covered the past half-year or so. Furthermore, he's already been indicted on federal charges for an unrelated incident, so it isn't a step up from anything that's happened up to this point.  Bremps  ...  18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The indictment is more relevant now than ever especially with what's happening to Trump.  Rager7 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Add "Donald Trump legal issues" to ongoing. From this point forward, there is likely to be new reporting on matters relating to these issues for the next year and change. Motions will be filed, argued, and ruled on, appearances will be made, charges will be appended, things will be put into evidence. Some of these will be headline developments, but they will all be aspects of the same milieu. BD2412  T 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From an encyclopedic standpoint particularly NOTNEWS, these trials are going to move very slowly...we should not be covering the day to day legal machinations that go on. Thus, this is a terrible idea for ongoing. M asem (t) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are kind of stuck in the middle, however. There will be real ground-breaking and headline-making developments—new indictments, procedural motions going up to the Supreme Court, trials actually being conducted, convictions or acquittals—but blurbing those would become an exercise in repetitiveness as well. BD2412  T 21:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Outside of New indictments, and whether there are convictions or acquittal, all that other stuff is just for the most part "noise" from a ten-year encyclopedic view. Documenting some parts of the process should happen but they are not going to be day to day events, as we'd expect from an ongoing topic. It is similar to why we don't put climate change as ongoing. M asem (t) 21:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like the ideal solution. Ongoing is best suited to articles where we can expect somewhat regular prose updates. The only target articles that would make sense there are Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president, which has issues and has been lacking major updates, and Trial of Donald Trump, a disambiguation page. Makes more sense to simply post the individual topics when they're in the news. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb I understand why Trump fatigue exists, but this is the most important indictment. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If ITN is just a news ticker, then this would have been posted already. But, the consensus has been that the standards should be more than just being major front-page headline news and I would like it to remain this way. StellarHalo (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trump being charged with more crimes, that we've known was going to happen forever. We even talked the last time this particular offender was charged that we knew that the insurrection charges were scheduled for August. I don't see how more charges against him or his co-conspirators is ITN-worthy. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - routine at this point. Post the convictions or acquittals. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheila Oliver

 * Support Article is solid with no issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written and appears to be well-sourced. No issues seen. —&#8288;PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - no reason to oppose. Glad someone else nominated this as I came here to do it myself. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * • Support Ready to post. SunsetShotguns (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready IMO Support The section that narrates her tenure as Lieutenat Governor is reduced to the results of the 2017 and 2021 elections, and little else. Is there anything noteworthy that she did as Lieutenant Governor? I'm sure there is. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Conceding that the section in question could stand a little expansion, the article as it stands is more than adequate, and, for a change, well referenced. IMO it more than meets the customary standards for RD. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did try looking at some sources to expand it, but she hasn't done anything noteworthy as LG. Her more noteworthy accomplishments were in the National Assembly. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks TDKR. So, if little else can be done, I think the article can now be posted. As for the rest of the article, I agree that it's in good condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. 〜 Askarion   ✉  02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)