Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2021

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: Joe Comuzzi

 * Support Short but meets minimum standards for depth, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment and here is the last 2021 death posted to RD. 1779Days (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Jones (basketball, born 1933)

 * Support Looks to be a well sourced article with no tags and ready for posting Chaosquo (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient breadth and quality.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Marshall Fire

 * Comment: the scale is similar to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, which we posted. 64.231.158.212 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why don't you take a look at what is the general position on previous nominations for catastrophes? It's exhausting. Without a notorious number of victims, it's not blurb-worthy and it's not important beyond Colorado. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard fires in this part of the world. DYK is an option. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't nominate "wildfire happens in place where wildfires are common" at DYK. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This wildfire is the worst CO has ever seen. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this wildfire was unique in that it is the worst CO has ever seen, but I don't think it rises to the prominence required to be ITN. This also happened a few days ago now -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If this was In The News In Colorado, then I would support. To me as an Australian, what? No deaths? This is minor. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity how do Australian wildfire deaths usually happen? Mostly sleepers or mostly climate change minimizers or mostly low-mobility humans in fast fires or what? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A combination of factors - the nature of the vegetation involved (mostly eucalypts, which are extremely flammable, almost explosive when it's very hot, because of their oil), rapid wind changes, poor roads, shortage of water to fight the fires.... If you have the time, have a read of Bushfires in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * North America's needleleaf trees are gratuitously flammable and cause many Christmas tree fires but our grasses and broadleaf trees aren't. Similar to or less flammable than eucalyptus I don't know, I live in the broadleaf biome. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support As an Australian, I regard this as an important portent of things to come. A bushfire in mid-winter. Caused by high winds (which will be a feature of our weather down under from now on due to climate change) and high voltage power lines (which are still not buried despite everything). Writing this so I can point to I-told-you-so when it happens.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Encyclopedic, unusual for time of year, article appears fully sourced. BBC is now stating 3 deaths. ETA As I type it is on the main index page of the Guardian & the BBC. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The wind alone must be unusual for any time of year as gusts reached 115 miles an hour (5-10 mph short of "levitate skydivers in a chimney") and people probably wouldn't live there if that happened often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose May be the worst in CO history, but it's not severe enough for ITN. We focus on deaths here for the most part and thankfully the number is low. Noah Talk 05:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's not important enough. Disasters which cause a similar or greater amount of damage happen quite frequently. Jim Michael (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Pending Expansion Low death toll, but plenty of human suffering and many abnormal images of a snowfirestorm. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * snowlightningstorm snowuricane  snowfirestorm tornado hits a volcano hurricane hits a wildfire Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I got a thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago. Absurd! And today I read Ontario beat Oklahoma for twisters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Third-cycle coverage indicates three people missing. Damage significant, with about 1,000 homes and businesses destroyed. A major disaster for thousands of people – with perhaps some relationship to climate change. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not severe enough (and thus not important enough) for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivan Mozgovenko

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hteik Su Phaya Gyi

 * Support but... - Some parts of the article lack citations, much more content could be added. But, as the last surviving member of a royal family in a country that has lost its monarchical origins, it's RD-worthy. (PenangLion (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Support as Myanmar's last royal figure. Taung Tan (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "Family" section is completely unsourced. Importance is irrelevant for RD, only quality. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it was described in the "List of People" section of The King in Exile: The Fall of the Royal Family of Burma. I've added that. Htanaungg (talk)


 * Support article is now fully cited. Joofjoof (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Blair becomes a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter

 * Strong oppose Trivial in the larger picture. We don't mark every knighthood or similar type of honor. --M asem (t) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? Just no. Pure trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Betty White

 * Shit, no. I had a bad feeling about CNN promoting her 100th birthday party. :( – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Was about to drop a warning that I can only see TMZ (and a few tabloid sites that link back to it) as the source, and thus highly suspect. --M asem (t) 19:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've reverted White' page to before the death was added because we should absolutely not be using TMZ as the only source for it (per RS/P) --M asem (t) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * News is starting to spread to other outlets, but citing the TMZ report. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We now have confirmation from her agent via Deadline, so this is now appropriate. --M asem (t) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WaPo. 2021 indeed sucked at least as hard as 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, if this is true. BD2412  T 19:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose presently on article quality. Several unsourced para. --M asem (t) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I weakly oppose a blurb. A lot about White is her superlatives - years in television, number of roles - as well as that she was about to turn 100. However, longevity or number of roles doesn't equate to "top of her field" (which even if we limit acting to women, would be people like Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep. --M asem (t) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD On numerous gaps in referencing. Oppose Blurb on significance. We didn't post Kirk Douglas or Olivia de Havilland either, both of whom were far more significant in the entertainment world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very notable person. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the sourcing issues should be straightforward to fix once the volume dies down. Also, the "100th birthday plans" section will need updating.  Regarding a blurb - in addition to Ad Orientem's examples, I don't see this being more blurbable than John Madden or Harry Reid. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - highly notable nonagenarian, huge influence on popular culture. Not a Mandela or Thatcher, but highly regarded irrespectively. (FWIW I'd have supported Madden for the same reason. I think the bar is too high) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready for RD yet on quality, but the gaps in referencing are few and far between so I think it'll get up to shape soon enough. Leaning towards support on blurb notability. She had an eight decade long career in entertainment, with continued relevance and name recognition from the 1930s to the present day. We tend to post people who are at the top of their respective career or otherwise highly influential, and there's certainly a case that Betty White fits this.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - highly notable and worth a mention. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above arguments. This is one blurb candidate where can't say "old man dies".--WaltCip- (talk)  19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Highly influential lady in entertainment. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 20:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for RD despite some filmography cn tags. I would oppose and try to find sources myself, but it is NYE. I do not expect anyone to work so hard to find obscure refs for at least a day, and the cn tags are not numerous, serious, or high in the article enough that it massively detracts from such a detailed article. I am neutral on whether White warrants a blurb, though I would lean for it, but it definitely shouldn't get a blurb until the tags are sorted. Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Not retracting, but different reply needed now tags are fixed and RD posted Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb once article issues are sorted out. Her impact as a woman in entertainment over the past century cannot be understated. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, this site is America-centric enough as it is. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not... oppose an item 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 unproductive. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to see more non-American stories posted, you need to nomimate them and work to bring the articles up to proper quality. We can only consider what is nominated, and I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb once issues are fixed; 91 years in the entertainment industry cannot be ignored. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb No Little Richard, no Betty White. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That we didn't do X so we shouldn't do Y is a poor argument, as it means no change would be possible. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Historically, the trend of change has been fewer blurbs and not more. If Little Richard and Chuck Yeager didn't get blurbs in 2020 after Carrie Fisher had gotten one in 2016(?), we shouldn't reverse course in 2021/2022. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More importantly, post the Carrie Fisher blurb, we've been more careful to post blurbs on deaths simply because the person was popular, a household name, or similar metric that wasn't a direct indicator of importance. --M asem (t) 22:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or reverse argument - Dilip Kumar was blurbed, so Betty White should be. And she has almost as many Wikipedia articles as Little Richard, so it is difficult to argue that she is below his level of popularity or that she is less famous worldwide. Kirill C1 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb not important enough for ITN blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If these 85 year old Indian politicians no one has ever heard of can make the blurb, I think Betty does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosHeartTransplant (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is false, they only made RD Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Also a SPA with 16 edits Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb/RD Guinness World Record holder of 9 decades in entertainment, has spanned a lengthy career with many notable achievements, even served in Women's Voluntary Services in World War II. Understand the article may have some issues, but it is a holiday, and this is definitely significant news and is being at least mentioned almost everywhere you look right now. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 20:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy support RD, neutral on blurb, per Kingsif and LTC b2412. This is all over the mainstream news and the article isn't in such an awful state that it must be kept off the front page. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 20:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Neutral Honestly have warmed to the pro-blurb arguments, but my initial instinct was to oppose the blurb, just because I think White belongs in the category of very old and very famous performers whose deaths, on a fundamental sense, aren't the news stories themselves as opposed to their life and career. Using that approach, having her name on the RD ticker just about says it all.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. White was certainly beloved but as a television actor whose most successful roles were classed as "supporting" or "guest" I think we're stretching the idea of "top of one's field". I know OTHERTHINGS is a flimsy argument but it would be a clear indicator of bias if we posted this blurb and not Bébel earlier this same year. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bébel (Belmondo) was posted, albeit pulled later. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb -- she is notable and blurbworthy because of her trailblazing for woman actors everywhere. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. If a 90 year influential career (how many people have that?) with numerous accolades doesn't merit someone a blurb, we might as well just pack it up and stop doing death blurbs, period. Very frustrating. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This pretty much sums up the argument for posting as a blurb. 90 years of experience in acting is incomprehensible in its size. She was acting through the end of World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iran-Contra scandal, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and 9/11. Whatever you might think of her notability outside the U.S., very few entertainers - possibly none - can lay similar claims to the breadth of her career. WaltCip- (talk)  21:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Particularly since she was a woman in a male dominated field... When she was born, women had only been allowed to vote in the United States for a single year.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - I think under any other circumstance, this would be an oppose, but White was still very much active in her career despite her age, and it can't hurt to improve the male/female balance of main page features, as well. Kafoxe (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - she was worldwide known due to such films as Proposal and You Again and the fact that she was acting in them while she was around 90. It speaks volumes that there was arranged, or planned, a celebration of her centennial. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, yep. Deserves no less and was a national icon in the U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD While she is known worldwide due to many films played by her, her role was not significant enough to posted as blurb, at least for someone who lived outside the US. 114.125.253.28 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does this matter? Please do not... oppose an item 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 unproductive.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD on quality. 1 failed verification and ~15 cn tags, including for non-trivial statements like "This marriage ended in divorce in 1949 after Allen pressured White to give up her career to become a homemaker." which absolutely must be cited or removed. No opinion about blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Sure she has done films. But she is essentially an extremely productve TV actress. RD is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally speaking, what is the difference between TV acting and film acting when it comes to blurbability? WaltCip- (talk)  21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Oppose blurb Much loved actress with a long career but no different to someone like Una Stubbs or Sally Ann Howes.2A00:23C5:5082:6101:85A9:36C0:A02C:5B64 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Una Stubbs - 22 wikipedia entries. Sally Ann Howes - 12 entries. Betty White - significantly more. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD Let's not rush this, there are several outstanding cite tags. Neutral on blurb once they are fixed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Legendary cultural figure with a career spanning nine decades. Remember that "but it's America-centric!" isn't supposed to be used as an argument. The Kip (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it looks like "it's America-centric" will prevent anything American from being blurbed. I get it, America produces a lot of culture and news and it can be annoying. ITN is not supposed to be an American news-ticker, which is fair... But America is the third most populous country in the world, and the world's sole superpower, it has a lot of influence and we can't just refuse to post things because it came from the US. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why mention the superpower thing? Are you going to invade us if we disagree? Many American stars would deserve a blurb, but this lady was NOT one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessarily how to read a lot of the opposition and it would be a good idea to not treat it as something competitive or combative. The truth is a lot of names of similar standing have been summarily ignored for ITN blurbs because their names weren't known to the US, or they were rightly seen as not being at the top of their field. American and British media are very widely seen in the anglophone world and can create the impression that because you or I are familiar with someone, that they must be a significant figure, which isn't the case. Here we are discussing someone whose entire career was spent in supporting roles--by definition not the top of their field--and the question is less a matter of "we shouldn't post it because it's an American story" and more of "are we only even considering posting it at all because it's an American story". If a non-anglophone supporting player were brought here it would not even be considered for a blurb for one second, and that is where the mention of America-centric bias comes from. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. There are millions of television actors but none have worked longer in the field than she did. Pretty sure any remaining issues on quality can and will be fixed shortly. Regards So  Why  22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Super notable, worked in the industry for decades, highly deserves a blurb.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 22:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most legendary actresses of all-time in Hollywood. Noah Talk 22:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I cannot see what makes her more important than many other RD candidates (actors and others) who haven't had blurbs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - she wasn't at the top of her field, nor did she have a transformative effect on it. Having had an exceptionally long career doesn't make her important enough. She's well below the level of hundreds of entertainers, including Kirk Douglas, who wasn't blurbed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Kirk Douglas should have been posted, as he was exceptional figure. Still, he was posted on main page in another language. Kirill C1 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The voting tally is 19 to 10 in favour of the blurb. This should really be posted now and closed before the discussion turns into something else, imho 5.44.170.26 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb/RD - Holding the longest television career of any entertainer, with her performances winning her five Primetime Emmy Awards, two Daytime Emmy Awards, and numerous other awards, she was truly one of the most legendary actresses in Hollywood, definitely meriting a blurb.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article is mostly fixed by now, and this discussion is overwhelmingly in favor, see above Comment. jonas (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD/weak support blurb Qualifies near "top of the field" in acting, and very well known. –DMartin 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article to even support the idea of "top of the field". "Beloved" and "well-known" do not qualify for this. --M asem (t) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- not that this is a !vote, but I could 23 supports for a blurb, to 10 opposes.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many unreferenced claims to post. Stephen 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not transformative/lack of impaact etc, unless simply being a part of the furniture is considered its own field. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb—she was the first woman to produce a sitcom on television. She's won numerous awards, and her career has spanned many decades from the earliest days of television to the modern day. She merits a blurb, and given the holiday, the few CNs present are either fixable or ignorable.  Imzadi 1979   →   01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gosh. Look at this thread and see how pathetic it shows all of us to collectively be. Mark a blurb, respect a life well-lived. Move on. For a moment, think of someone from outside the project or outside the encyclopedia reading this thread -- how pathetic are we, collectively. Move on. Use this time to improve the article instead. Article has 9 tags as of this moment. Ktin (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, I truly wish only folks who contribute to improving the article get to post their opinions here. Will do away with all the cacophony. Ktin (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb She is the "John Madden" of TV. She is not top of her field and not transformative. Tradedia talk 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD While she is transformative figure in sitcom and highly influential in entertainment industry, she was relatively unknown outside of English-speaking countries or Europe given her performance. 182.1.235.246 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So someone can be very important but because they aren't known to everyone (I would venture that Anglophone world and Europe is a significant amount of the world anyway) they are disqualified? That's impressively the opposite of other arguments above; that she was well-known but no more important than Kirk Douglas (specifically because he wasn't posted). I'll just be clear and think that neither are very useful !vote reasons. On the subjective side, comparing importance to similar people can be useful. Douglas and White aren't very comparable, and he is only being mentioned because he wasn't posted. Debating how known someone is, is particularly pointless because of the ITN/R things (global elections, Nobel and other awards) that annually give blurbs to lots of people of various industries and nations who are transformative but unknown. Kingsif (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb or RD High-profile person. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  02:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thread re-opened following resolution of the citation needed tags. -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Post RD now let blurb discussion continue. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD now that the CN tags have been taken care of. Neutral on blurb, but leaning towards support . Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to a Support Blurb. IMO, good arguments have been raised here about White's importance, consistent popularity, and longevity in the medium of television that I think she warrants a blurb. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 06:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD but whether a blurb or not can continue --M asem (t) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this is after verifying the article was fixed. I see one line unsourced but its about an appearance in a work so non-controverisal. --M asem (t) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we post the blurb now? Seems consensus is leaning that way. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There is the tiniest discussion of infobox image on the talkpage. As this would impact the image posted in the box for a blurb, everyone here is welcome to join. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Name recognition and/or familiarity does not equate to being 'top of field'. Likewise, we don't post blurbs just because someone lives to the age of 99. As mentioned by another poster, Betty White spent the majority of her career in supporting roles. It is inconceivable that a blurb for similar person outside the US would be given the slightest of consideration. Chrisclear (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Fwiw, utterly unknown in this neck of the woods. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blerb It is not often that someone in the entertainment industry has a long career like Betty White, spanning most of her life. Urbanracer34 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Whether people in ...Egypt, as a random country... have heard of her or not, White's position in the field of television cannot be denied. She places more among transformative pioneers than entertainers: she was on television before television existed, when there were experiments to invent it in the 30s, and after it "died" come 2016 and the dominance of streaming (and then she did streaming too). During that time, she was regular in at least sitcoms and game shows for all eight decades. She was a constant of the medium. Who else, in any field, ever, has been a solid figure at its inception and through its (and their) entire lifespan? And I do hope if there was an actor from, say, Egypt, who was such a perennial figure in television, the achievement would also be considered important enough. Didn't we recently blurb the death of a Bollywood actor at the top of that industry? I know there's a sizable cohort of Indian editors, but ITN-contributors-at-large listen when the impact of something they don't know is explained. It's not American bias to give White a blurb when she has an achievement to warrant it. The hidden bias is that with more American editors, it is less likely any non-American comparable figure would have an article/ITN nom/discussion if nommed at ITN to get posted, but that isn't for us to solve in this discussion.  Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the claims of greatness are supported by the article - factually true she had a long career, but that doesn't equate to having a transformative role in television which needs strong sourcing to back it up. The problem is the same we had with Carrie Fisher - an extremely popular actress and the death shocked the entertainment world, but really not as transformative or top of the field as has been given. Thre's no section that goes into detail about how her role has impacted the industry, which would be a minimum requirement to even suggest that she was that transformative. --M asem (t) 07:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Reading her article, it's clear that her body of work make her blurb-worthy. The fact that many of her achievements were breakthroughs for women that we now mostly consider mundane but were absolutely groundbreaking decades ago shouldn't be a barrier to posting. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is in good shape, she was a TV icon, groundbreaking actress and her death is being reported globally (if she wasn’t notable outside the US, those obits wouldn’t exist). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – "If I had a dick, this is where I'd tell you to suck it!". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Notable, no doubt, but not a world-changing scientist or politician, which is typically the bar for death blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support speedy blurb Television pioneer with a career of nine decades. In nearly major news source, her death has been the most viewed and most shared story. I cannot recall any death where so many of the obituaries and tributes describe the deceased as a national treasure. A serious newsroom would understand the prominence of this story and its import to the public. That over 12 hours have passed without the blurb being added suggests this process is at best dysfunctional and more likely broken. Dr Fell (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Second this. I have no idea why this hasn't been posted yet, but it's clear there is a consensus for it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb given her truly unique role in the history of television. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Old Woman Dies A charismatic and beloved woman, sure, but a big name whose age was already famous in the RD slot is the exact same message (minus a photo). A blurb is just fan service, which is already provided extensively in the article we're already promoting. Violates NPOV, loosely. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb – consensus leans in favor of posting a blurb as several of the opposing arguments are unconvincing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mine convinced you to finally do it, admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose Discussed whilst much of the world outside the US was celebrating the New Year, and I suspect the voting may have been different otherwise. It would not have hurt to let the discussion run for 24 hours. Beloved figure she may have been, but not at top of field, largely unknown outside one country.  At least Carrie Fisher was widely known...  Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello 2022 Let the year's first "the rest of the world was sleeping (or hungover)" debate begin.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm only speaking for myself, but I would normally have seen this discussion before it was closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not transformative either. No Academy Awards or Golden Globes. An equivalent entertainer with a long career in any other country would be unlikely to be given a blurb. She had a very long career, but was nowhere near the level of Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Academy Awards and Golden Globes are for work in film, White was primarily known for television, for which she got several Emmys and a lifetime achievement award. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But she's best-known for the guilty-pleasure sitcoms The Golden Girls & Hot in Cleveland. How can that put her in the same class as Streep? Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Has Streep worked in film for 90 years? 331dot (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As you know, Streep - like the vast majority of people - hasn't hasn't been able to have a career that long due to not having lived that long. However, Streep's career & achievements greatly outweigh White's. Streep should be blurbed less than an hour after being nominated, but this nom should have been up for discussion for 24h before a decision about posting were made. Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She was nominated for four Golden Globes, though. She also won several Emmys, both Primetime and Daytime, SAGs(Screen Actors Guild Awards), Grammys, BAFTA/LA Britannia Awards, and was nominated for numerous Emmys. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Non-transformative actor, no impact on acting, acting or theatre history, no appearance in any transformative work. Utterly unconvincing supports above include coffee and crumbs’s vote without rationale and the ridiculous claim that “she was on television before television existed”, which is just completely incorrect. Old woman dies is a bit harsh, but true. We’ve ignored many, many others in the entertainment field who have a better claim of inclusion, and this is just fan-voting and nothing else. 213.205.197.251 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced you even glanced at the article. And yes, she was on television before it existed as an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t know what you’re talking about on either point. Yes, of course I read the article. The television industry began in 1936 in the UK (although we began broadcasting in 1932) and white appeared in a very minor piece in 1939, then not appearing in the medium for another decade. So no, she didn’t appear on television, or even in the television industry, “before television existed”. These arguments are all a very, very long stretch to try and get someone up as a blurb. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "before it existed", I said "before it existed as an industry". It was not widespread in the 1930s. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My original comment quoted Kingsif: s/he was wrong in making the claim “she was on television before television existed” whether you take it as television or the television industry. You have tried to move the goalposts to claim “she was on television before it existed as an industry”: that is also incorrect. There was a television industry in the UK in the mid to late 1930s. Making up unverified claims to try and get someone on the front page seems a bit desperate. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you know all about it I suggest that you review the article for possible corrections that need to be made. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not said I know all about it. I have simply refuted one of the more misleading claims that have been made to attempt to justify the posting. There is no justification for the fan posting here, and the sooner it is taken down, the better. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If being responsive to current events and what readers might be looking for is a "fan posting", so be it. The JWST must have fans to, as did Desmond Tutu and those interested in cricket. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Straw men arguments. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you didn't just equate Desmond Tutu with an actor. (The cricket story is ITN/R). Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's OK, they're both Christians, Christians dig unity in the hereafter. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tutu was blurbed less than an hour after being nominated because he was at the top of his field. Is anyone honestly claiming that White is on a par with Streep, or even anywhere near her level? Jim Michael (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tutu technically worked under two Archbishops of Canterbury, one of whom might die soon. Show some respect. What made Tutu bigger than White (in this life) was helping end apartheid. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll certainly blurb Carey, but Tutu was more well-known & influential overall (including his activism). No-one's claiming White was at Streep's notability level. The main arguments for including White are her popularity, domestic awards & career length, which aren't enough to justify a blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget her recent online association with "national treasure", AKA "the phrase that pays", eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Stats The first day's numbers are in now and it seems clear that, for our readership, this is one of the biggest deaths of the year. Here's a |John_Madden|Betty_White|E._O._Wilson|Ray_Illingworth|Janice_Long|Michael_Nesmith|Bipin_Rawat|Bob_Dole|Antony_Sher comparison with some other famous names who died in December.  The spike of 3.7M views is superstar level – no-one else comes close. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN doesn't care about readership figures at all (as we are not a newspaper and readers coming here to catch up on news are in the absolutely wrong place). And remember that she was up as an RD as soon as her article was fixed up +/- 15 minutes. --M asem (t) 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it merely indicates popularity & interest by readers - not level of notability. ITN doesn't post most things that are among the most-read on WP that day/week/month/year. If we did, we'd post a lot of stories about domestic sports, politics & entertainment. Jim Michael (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't ITN intended for popular topics that are of interest to our readers? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 13:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Otherwise we would just be celebrity and entertainment and sports stories. Popularity should not at all enter the picture. --M asem (t) 13:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Crime, sex, disaster...animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Showbiz American white women. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm late in getting to this, but "" is a bonkers and outdated statement. (I appreciate pushing back on it.) The fact is that a lot of people come here to read up on recent news and the context underlying it, and Wikipedia's model of bringing a variety of sources together is excellent at providing these. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – I would have opposed a blurb, but it was evident the subject's faithful fans, venting their views in a cyclone of 5,000 words, would prevail. Incertum quo fata ferunt. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rem acu tetigisti. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, Quo tendimus? – Sca (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Like White, David Jason is an elderly actor who has a very long career, is a national treasure, is best-known for sitcoms, has domestic but not international awards & has millions of fans abroad as well as at home. However, he won't be blurbed even if his career continues well into his 90s. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ironically, gender may possibly make a difference here. It is fairly effortless to name multiple major male actors whose careers started young and who were still acting into their 90s. It is quite a bit more difficult to identify other female actors fitting the same parameters. In a comment on a different part of this thread, I must admit that I find the use of Latin, in a thread discussing prominent actors using modern technology mediums, to be rather ... odd. As a consequence, the nail hit on the head may not actually have been the nail aimed at. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh, ITN has become so terribly vulgar recently. Plene confirmo notionem wikipediae Latinae, in qua callidissimi esse possumus. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did Pogo the Possum say that? – Sca (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pupetta Maresca

 * Long enough (>700 words) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Moncrief

 * Support RD I wrote most of this article back in 2014. Many of the links were dead, so I've just updated all the citations with archived versions. Ackatsis (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone has time to get to it first: (1)Present tense still used in some places ("he has strictly adhered..."), and (2) needs editing in Personal Life ("Moncrief was said to have..."). Joofjoof (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No opinion, but the "Moncrief was said to have ..." verbiage remains.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How reliable is the Weekly Wire source that's used over a dozen times? It's in the "News and Opinion" column and is laced with "an anonymous ex-employee said that ..." quotes. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The linked page displays "FWWeekly", which seems to be the present-day Fort Worth Weekly, a local, weekly paper.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships

 * Oppose Even if this rises to the importance level of us putting the WJC on ITN, the postponement isn't big enough, especially given indications that it may just end up being postponed. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lot of events are being cancelled due to virus surge, and this event isn't even on WP:ITNR either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nancy Worley

 * Support article looks to be in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is the article balanced? It seems to me to concentrate on her removal from office and prosecution, with very little else. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still too little coverage on what the subject did during her term as Secretary of State of Alabama, etc., but too much coverage on the legal issues later in her career (half of the Career section). --PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ghislaine Maxwell

 * Support -- definitely ITN. Also, fixed up blurb. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support major trial with lots of publicity. I imagine a lot of users are going to be coming to Wikipedia over the next week looking for information on her charges and what they mean, as well. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Who is Jeffrey Epstein?" is a reasonable question to expect from non-US people, let alone his former associate. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it? His suicide was on the news everywhere. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From a quick survey of major English-language news sources, I think it's more accurate to say that British news sources are covering this the most comprehensively (likely due to the defendant's nationality, where her family has already been, er, well-known for a long time). As of right now, it's a main page story on the New York Times, LA Times CNN websites, etc., but it's full-sized, banner headline Big News on The Guardian's international homepage and the Telegraph's, for example.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Front page for Sydney Morning Herald and The Globe and Mail. Not only is "international significance" a totally made up non-criteria but to claim en wiki readers would have no idea who Epstein and Maxwell are requires a level of ignorance that has to be (or is at least hopefully) willfully ignorant. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you in the US? If you aren't, I suggest running a random check on people you meet to see if they know who Jeffrey Epstein is (I'd suggest not bothering with Ghislaine_Maxwell). Also, when you look at some headlines like the "Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case" headline from The Globe and Mail, it's obvious that most people don't know Ghislaine Maxwell, because Ghislaine Maxwell needs to be anchored to Jeffrey Epstein before people can place the context. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the British outlets I mentioned (Telegraph: "Ghislaine Maxwell facing 70 years in prison for sex trafficking" / Guardian: "Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in sex-trafficking trial") feel the need to mention Epstein alongside Maxwell in their banner headlines (and neither does the Sydney Morning Herald headline!) Using your metric, that means they assume their readership is more likely to know who she is than two of three American news headlines right now. (Though regardless, rule 2 makes this a counterproductive argument anyway.)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I read this comment this morning and took Banedon up on the suggestion. The first person (an elderly neighbour) I asked "do you know who Jeffrey Epstein was" responded with a confused look. "Of course," - confused I thought she might not! Then her face changed. Oh, did I not know and needed explanation? - "his ex girlfriend was just found guilty of sex trafficking, terrible business. Killed himself in prison because of it." I politely went on my way before she got gossiping, but asked another three people in town and got similar responses. It was the headline on the evening news yesterday... I followed up with two of my unwitting survey respondees by asking who Kamala Harris was and they didn't know. So, it is American ignorance to assume only Americans have heard global news about a British woman. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which country are you in? Banedon (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. per above I got multiple push notifications about this from BBC News, where the website features live coverage as the main news and two other related stories are in the top 6, so it's clear this is internationally significant (but also "Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one."). Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If and when this gets posted, could the posting administrator please also post the Ashes Series ITN item as well? Chrisclear (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The connection to Epstein is really the only part that elevates this story. If there was no conection to Epstein - but still resulted in arrest and this conviction - it likely would not be anywhere close to groundbreaking. This is the media's bias on bad actors showing here and not the type of story we should give front page coverage of. --M asem (t) 01:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support front page around the world, decent article, not a DISASTERSTUB for a change. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support US news should not dominate ITN, I think we can all agree on that. But the reasoning presented thus far by oppose votes, isn't convincing to me. Yes, of course her relationship to Epstein is a boost of relevance to this story - the alleged crimes occurred in partnership with him! "x news is only famous/significant because of y" is too broad a standard to apply, and would disqualify just about everything, because things do not just occur in isolation. As for media's bias, we don't lead, we follow - WP:RGW. Arguing that this is getting attention because of bias and that we should correct for it, isn't neutral. Lastly, if there's genuine concern about people not knowing who Jeffrey Epstein is, then we can simply tag the appropriate article. Canadianerk (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Particularly for ITN, we don't follow blindly (we are not a news ticker), and need to be aware of systematic bias that does exist. This isn't a case of RGW, nor a case of "opposing due to one country", but simply that this is media jumping on a figure who has been convicted, and who was connected to a figure that was already under the press's microscope. Take away the Epstein connection, and this really isn't a major story. --M asem (t) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, if any ordinary person did equivalent crimes for their boyfriend, it would probably reach regional/national news at best. But Ghislaine Maxwell is not an ordinary person, nor is her then-boyfriend, Epstein. Take any major story involving a celebrity and take away the celebrity - and unsurprisingly - it won't get as much coverage. There is bias influencing that outcome for a variety of reasons, but the celebrity of a person contributes to the newsworthiness of a story for the press. Hence, I find it hard to understand why pointing this out accomplishes anything, nor why it means the story is not ITN worthy. Epstein is in this story, and this woman has been convicted of crimes she committed in collaboration with him. Because of that, the allegation that systemic bias is too widespread in this story, means that it shouldn't run? Canadianerk (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You've basically proved the point that news jumps on "celebrity" coverage and elevates certain stories to importance levels that for an encyclopedia, where we are more interested in endurance of topics rather than news bursts, doesn't make it a good fit. --M asem (t) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the press does the same thing for politics, sports and just about every story they cover, wildly adjusting importance levels. Does that mean we should stop covering things that the news covers, thereby completely defeating the point of ITN? Overcorrecting for perceived bias by choosing not to cover something at all is an extreme reaction I'm struggling to understand. One that at this point, for this piece of news, does not read as justified with simply "not groundbreaking", nor the bias you're citing, or most of the arguments I've seen presented thus far. The vast majority of news we cover is covered in news bursts... It's how the news cycle works? If it's the standard to correct to this extreme for both celebrity and news cycle, we've got a lot of changes to implement - including ditching most of ITN/R - because applying this standard unequally is arguably worse than just killing well-covered stories for this reasoning, and letting through random sports tournament #43. Tl;dr - this nomination appears to already have been killed, so there's not much point in continuing this. Thanks for trying to explain your perspective politely, I appreciate it. Canadianerk (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. Reading the comments above, I would say this is an Anglo-American story. It's there on the home page of France24 in English and De Telegraaf, to further add to international coverage. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is okay. For our purposes it suffices that the subject is in the news worldwide. Would have more difficulty if I had to explain why. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support definitely ITN and article is decent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I would actually suggest splitting out a separate Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell article, as there is substantially more coverage than is currently reflected in the article. I disagree that the connection with Epstein is the only thing that makes this international news. This is, as one source put it, "the woman who ties Jeffrey Epstein to Trump and the Clintons"; in other words, a major figure in her own right. Those famous names came up during the trial itself, so even if "Epstein" was removed from the equation, we would still be discussing a woman with ties to top-tier international figures being convicted of sex trafficking minors. BD2412  T 06:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As U.S. based court trial stories go, this one is not particularly important. This trial is mostly celebrity tabloid fodder. The Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts were much more consequential (both in November 2021) and both of those were declined at ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How were the Rittenhouse & Arbery verdicts more consequential? Rittenhouse was acquitted & there were no consequences. Arbery's killers were convicted but it was a fairly standard trial which received excesssive media coverage because of its racial angle. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Even with concerns over the impact of this specific trial, the magnitude of what these verdicts stand for and what they mean for the general Epstein situation are of significance. The idea that something like this is US-centric when supposedly so many countries were probably touched by this scandal is absurd. Not too big on any of the blurbs though. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She has not implicated any major figures during her trial and there is no indication that her conviction will have significant further consequences for anyone else other than Ghislaine Maxwell. By comparison the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts have had major impact on race relations and on gun related debates in the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. Obviously nothing is proven as far as further charges and individuals being implicated, but the initial comment is somewhat misguided. Yes, Maxwell isn't Epstein, but the link between these two is undeniable and to act like the allegations against Maxwell are completely separate from him is silly. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There may be consequences, if not direct, for Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who made it abundantly clear, in his 2019 interview with Emily Maitlis, that it was for Maxwell he had organised a special birthday party weekend pheasant shoot at Sandringham House. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Significant event and gaining global coverage. Article also looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't a truly major verdict. Riots won't be happening in the streets, but many tabloid newspapers will be sold. If this were a certain member of the British royal family, then perhaps the story would make it to the front page. The recent Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts did not make the cut, this should not either.Thriley (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and, especially, per Thriley. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thriley. Where exactly is the world-historical importance here? ITN would become a pure tabloid if we posted individual criminal trials merely because they receive media attention - and this one, ironically, is particularly unworthy because it merely establishes the involvement of one not particularly famous "socialite" in abuse already proven to have taken place in another criminal trial. I do not doubt the significance for those involved but I am yet to see a convincing argument that its implications go any further. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thriley, not a ground breaking trial, not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Leads many prime RS sites Thursday: AP, BBC, Guardian However, the verdict was a foregone conclusion given the highly publicized testimony in this sordid affair. Leaning toward oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest news story in the English-speaking world right now, and I suspect it will remain at the top of the headlines for at least another week. It seems strange for us to be imposing our own standards of importance over the media's when Wikipedia is intended to follow, not to lead. Mlb96 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The biggest news story in the world right now, both in the English speaking world and non English speaking world, is the Omicron variant. It's also by far more important than the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not if you watch or listen to the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Huge press coverage. True "cross continent" story, that may yet have implications for other ongoing criminal investigations. Even gets a look in from everyone's favourite conspiracy theorists. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thriley. And not even a top story here in the Czech Republic. Pavlor (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the "top story in the Czech Republic" nominated elsewhere on this page? Isn't that more the province of cz.wiki? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is one of my measures to alleviate "systemic bias". It is a top story inside a subset of English-language media, outside that, nobody really cares. Just compare this verdict to the Chauvin trial, which had universal media coverage across the globe. This one is a tabloid-like triviality in comparison. Pavlor (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, the Chauvin trial was a bigger global news event. But are you suggesting all future nominations are compared against the top story in the Czech Republic? And I'm not sure the estimated "few dozen to over 100" victims of Epstein and Maxwell would consider it "tabloid-like triviality". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not consider what makes the news in the Czech Republic? English Wikipedia is "Wikipedia in the English language", not "Wikipedia for Anglo-Americans". For reference, it has barely made it onto the front page of Le Monde and is not even one of the top three American-related stories there (1) and ditto El Pais (2). This does not mean that we should not feature this story, but it does mean that the onus is on the supporters to find a better argument than "lots of press coverage". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing against Czech news. But yes, I am assuming en.wiki ITN is primarily about what's in English language news (and certainly not just "Anglo-American"). Do you think we should always check what's the top story in China before posting at ITN? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. media none of the news sites I looked at currently lead with the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with the exception of a couple of yellow rags like NY Post. Quite a few U.S. newspapers with national circulation currently don't have the Ghislaine Maxwell story on their front pages at all, including Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. WaPo does have the story on its front page right now (not as the lead, the lead story is Omicron, of course), ironically with the headline critical of BBC's coverage: "BBC criticized for having Dershowitz analyze Maxwell case despite allegations against him." That shows where the story ranks in the U.S. right now in the order of importance. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The verdict was delivered about 5pm EST yesterday? Unlike ITN, most news outlets move on as fast as they can to the next breaking story? But yes, I guess less significant stories will tail off more quickly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, seven of the ten most popular stories on the Guardian's US site right now are about the Maxwell trial. The others: Tiger fatally shot at Florida zoo after biting man's arm, Record snowfall in California, Denver shooting suspect wrote books describing similar attacks. .-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why there is apparently no coverage of this in Chinese-language (which is a language I picked at random) US newspapers, e.g. and . A uniquely English thing, maybe? Banedon (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Story in the public's interest which has lasted many months. 2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Story is not in the international public interest.  Story is not notable outside of the United States.  Story is not important.  Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip magazine.  Personally, I would have to look up who Mr. Epstein is or was, and his associate is even less important.  For a US site, maybe.  For an international site, no, certainly not front page news.  The English language Wikipedia is in English, but its coverage should be worldwide like its audience is — it should not be specific to English speaking countries.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 21:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "not notable outside of the United States"?? I think the BBC and ITV would beg to differ, as it's been wall-to-wall since abut 10pm last night.... Or is your comment intended as a public service instruction? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To consider that an event occurring in the U.S. is internationally notable because the BBC talks about it a lot seems foolhardy to me. They are still "brother" countries and it's not at all unusual for something important in the US to be picked up in the UK with the same or similar impact. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, um yes, it's "picked up". It's between nations.... so "international". It's.... in the news. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if it's international? Read rule 2; who cares? Soccer isn't in the international interest (in my opinion), but it's still posted here because it's ITN. So is this story. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the most American comment I've seen here. Check out the viewership of the FIFA world cup finals and compare it to your so called football competition. 182.3.37.93 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tabloid stuff. No global significance. This case should have 2 ITN only: him going to jail and him dead.  Tradedia talk 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know where all the "gossip" and "tabloid" arguments are coming from. Is this covered in broadsheet, TV, major news outlets? Yes. Is it a high-profile criminal conviction, something that we get enough of we have actually brought in guidelines on when to post them? Yes. I can see oppose reasons like "wait for her to be sentenced" being made seriously, but not "unimportant celebrity gossip". Damn. Also, anyone saying it's only in America don't seem to notice that she is British and not exactly unknown in the country - arguably, more infamous in the UK than the US - and that this side of it (i.e. the not-Epstein notoriety) has spilled into France/Aus/NZ news at least. If you actually look at the global news. Of course, something doesn't have to be reported internationally (as long as it's ITN somewhere) for international interest, not something I think I've argued before but have conceded when other have - fascination with criminals is universal. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This type of news is where even quality sources like NYTimes and BBC enter a "tabloid" mode. I have no feelings about Maxwell here, but this is clearly a person that, like Epstein, the media show no issue with portraying in a negative light. It is a similar problem to missing white woman syndrome, that these are people they love to hate and thus a ruling like this is one they love to harp on. If there were no ties to Epstein, the trial would still have been covered, but with far less importance or coverage. That's the basic problem here is the artificial inflation of this story due to the celebrity nature of it - basically acting like tabloids. --M asem  (t) 02:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I cannot remember a more obvious candidate that encountered more than trivial resistance. I encourage anyone considering opposition to go re-read the ITN criteria. It sounds like it was written with this nomination in mind. Then read the opposition !votes here; you will find none are applicable to the standards. That is quite telling.   GreatCaesarsGhost   01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Known in Canada. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a procedure to define "consensus" when the vast majority of oppose votes are coming from people who apparently haven't read the actual rules of ITN? I'm not even certain if I'm supportive or opposed (I think there is a good argument against posting this specific development in the whole saga of this case to this point) but nearly all of the opposed !votes here have been completely unconvincing to anyone who's read Rule 2—and regardless, I think the claim that this is news in only one country has been materially disproven. (And, if I may be so presumptuous, if there is one country where this has received more encompassing news coverage than anywhere else, I really don't think it's the one people here think it is...) --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't a democracy, the !votes that ignore rule 2 by complaining that it's only relevant to the United States (which isn't even true... Maxwell is British) could just be ignored. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry but this is nowhere near significant. And we should have some editorial judgement on significance beyond how popular the story is currently. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Those preceding opinions are our judges' findings on significance as news. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting, if all a bit tabloid-y, but a very long way short of global significance as news.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The AP's second-day story begins: "The Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking trial was a four-week winding road featuring sordid testimony by four women ...." (my emphasis). An apt description of a legal circus. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: – At 4,000 words, this discussion seems to have run its course. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How much do US attorneys get for a four-week sex-trafficking trial these days? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but probably more than we get for editing the online encyclopedia that is not a news ticker. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oooh, is that sour grapes, or just hard cheese? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please! Civis orbis sum. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Even while discounting some of the !votes, this is still a borderline call to post. Discussion seems to have hit a New Year's lull.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it probably should have been posted, but honestly, it's somewhat stale at this point. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A story TMZ broke on an American TV personality's personal trouble passed easily tonight, so it's still a good year for Western gossip journalism, just not looking good for the heels. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Stand News nomination (below) from the same day was just posted essentially today, so it's not stale for ITN purposes.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Clearly for ITN. Article is sourced and ready. Has recieved extensive coverage for months and years actually. The opposing sides strongest argument seems to be ”it’s trivial”, which is just an opinion not a fact. BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment On the other hand, if we wait a few days we can bundle it up with the inevitable RD nomination. (Sorry) Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Trust ITN. Always looking for the easy way out. (Not sorry) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Stand News

 * Comment - I have linked to the article for the actual police raid instead, which I have copyedited. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 21:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I have shown this as an alt blurb for clarity and choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- definitely ITN and indicative of the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd have supported, but there's precedent against it. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've suggested Alt2 as a tweak of alt1 as I think we generally use "Hong Kong" rather than "HK" in blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Except it isn't showing up and I can't figure out why? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The notable news was closure of Apple Daily, this is less widely known media, and thus covered less in the news. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks good and the news is widely reported globally. I'm not sure why Today's Zaman would be considered precedent against posting government raids on newsorgs considering that editors participating in that ITNC were supportive of its posting. Also there is no conflict between posting the closure of Apple Daily and the closure of Stand News; indeed, both were the most popular news websites in Hong Kong that aren't editorially pro-government at their time of closure. feminist (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Global reporting: Nikkei; CBC; France 24; Straits Times. This is no less notable than the Apple Daily closure, which took place over a longer period of time. feminist (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose zero information about the subject beyond its conflicts with the CPC fails WP:N. If this were a notable publication, the article would look more like the Toronto Star. Nom and supports feel like WP:RGW to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurbs, so the article with expanded/higher quality is bolded. Not convinced by the arguments that oppose votes have presented. This event has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. An event occurring because of a "conflict" with a government is so trivial it violates WP:N? Then there's "x thing is more significant than y" so y shouldn't be covered? Both, no offense meant, are not convincing to me, and are stretches at best. To address the final oppose argument thus far, the precedent cited is a case where something was closed because it was nominated late, and thus stale - no offense, but that precedent is meaningless, and only has relevance if this nomination stalls. That is not currently the case. Canadianerk (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is evidently more important than the closure of Memorial and the article is in very good shape. I like the wording of the suggested blurbs to reflect both the raid with arrests and the closure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and this echoes the Memorial blurb case that was just posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 Though the news org is smaller than Apple Daily, it is notable per the reporting above. Article on the raid is now well sourced, and has gone through quite a bit of copyediting. ALT3 is short and to the point. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support notable event, covered widely across globe Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 or ALT3 Enough global significance. Tradedia talk 22:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, current vote is 8-3 in favour of posting. Canadianerk (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors and awards are not referenced. Stephen 07:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Referenced them' Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another footnote in the story of China's total takeover of Hong Kong. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 or ALT3 Earth-shattering significance, widely reported. --  Ohc  revolution of our times 15:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In HK's case, the Earth was already shattered – and shuttered too. – Sca (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for everyone's reference, one of the pieces that they wrote in May is widely considered as one of the trigger points of the September Office Action (though unconnected in reality) but the aftershock of the May one led to the July Signpost "National Security Threat", which in turn got into September and October's Signpost again.--1233 ( T / C） 15:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional note: The piece was archived here--1233 ( T / C） 16:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt3.  Spencer T• C 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumb question -- isn't the correct grammar "is arrested"? Or is that specific to American English? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Staff" generally refers to plural and is appropriate with "are" in the same way that "data" is often plural as in "the data from the experiments are..." but can probably be interpreted either way stylistically. - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I think it would be wrong in the singular; "staff" as a collective can't be arrested, only the individual staff members. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be "is" in American English, but HK English is presumably closer to BrE and also colonial MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With regards to spelling, HK English is British English, especially in official and/or professional settings. feminist (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael R. Clifford

 * Support. Everything looks sourced, although that NASA Bio is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is fine, well sourced and an interesting deep coverage of his career. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are two different names given for his father. Also overreliance on NASA bio, much of the article is just a copy and the tone was not all suitable (I've edited). I'd suggest waiting until there are independent obituaries published in sources that do proper fact checks. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  More independent sourcing needed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at the sourcing, please? I hope it is good enough now. This wikibio's eligibility for RD is running out. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I strike my above oppose, and defer to others on the remaining NASA citations. It certainly has been reduced by ~70% it seems.—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bagumba. I hope this reduction is enough to have the orange tag removed. --PFHLai (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's less reliance on NASA now, and remaining claims do not otherwise seem extraordinary to me. I removed tag as the original tagger.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Memorial (society)

 * Support - The blurb must be politically neutral, but nevertheless a pretty important moment. (PenangLion (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
 * I believe it currently is? The only subjective label is "most influential", which I don't think is particularly controversial (and is supported by the weight of sourcing). I don't object to removing "most influential", though; my rationale was that "oldest" doesn't convey how significant its role is within Russian civil society, but it's not essential. Do you have any particular suggestions for the wording? Cheers, Jr8825  •  Talk  12:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely one of the most influential, but the part needs to be sourced, that's all. The blurb is perfectly fine beyond that. Peace out. (PenangLion (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC))


 * Support. Significant for Russia and widely covered internationally. The alt blurbs are too wordy, but the original blurb is basically OK. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support, has been operational for 32 years. Someone, however, has tagged the article for copyediting, full suport once the tag is resolved one way or the other. Brandmeistertalk  13:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with ITN processes, but is it always necessary to resolve all article cleanup tags? I added the copy edit tag as I listed it at the guild for a read over, and I think it's helpful for the tag to remain until that's done (which will likely take some time). I spent this afternoon whipping the article into better shape and copy editing egregious issues with grammar and content, but it could still do with a thorough review of the English as some sections look like they were translated from Russian. The article is still in much better shape than it was. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Revisiting In_the_news, it says: . But since some copyediting has been done, I will not nitpick, appearance on the main page will bring more (copy)editors. Brandmeistertalk  18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, pending edit. Seven prime RS sites on Wed. list this ham-fisted blow for further govt. autocracy as their lead article. Once again, the Russian state owns history, too. Спасибо, товарищ! Favor succinct first blurb. Suggest use of "Мемориал" logo. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just another footnote in the story of Putin's Russian autocracy... Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Once the article is fixed up. This is gaining global coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that there's global coverage of the story and sharp criticism of the order, but it seems like the right time to post this was when the foreign agent law came into force in 2012. Russia-based NGOs are literally unable to receive funding from abroad as a result of the law and those with international connections have been under continuous supervision by the government, so the closure of a human rights organisation, even the oldest and most notable one, is a logical consequence of what has been happening in the recent years. This might have been a notable story had it happened in a country with liberal laws on the NGO sector, but that's clearly not the case here. However, we should pay attention to the development of the story because it may get important if it results in international sanctions against Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. The story is about the ban of Memorial, which happened this week, not in 2012. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My view is that even if this move was expected, perhaps inevitable given Russia's trajectory, Memorial's status and influence makes it a historic (and grim) milestone anyway. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Memorial had been an organization with considerable global stature and influence, and rather iconic and venerable stature in Russia itself, which is why this move was not inevitable and is somewhat unexpected even given Russia's continued slide into totalitarianism. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Memorial was established to herald the democratic transition from a repressive socialist society to a liberal democratic one. Given the historical developments in the country over the past three decades, the organisation clearly failed on its mission. That being said, its "iconic and venerable stature in Russia" probably applies to a very limited group of people with no impact in the Russian society. And this story is a big farce. However loud the international reactions are, there's unwillingness to take anything concrete in order to counter it. That's why this should be taken seriously only in case international sanctions are imposed against Russia as a result or, at least, if an international court rules against the order made by the Supreme Court of Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Memorial has been an organization with an iconic and venerable status in Russia, and it has had major impact on Russian society over decades. Requiring that there be international sanctions on Russia before we post a story of this importance to ITN is complete and utter arbitrary nonsense. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RS say Memorial is (in similar words) iconic and venerable; for example, look at the tone of the Financial Times' coverage. It's what the sources say which matters (not editors' personal views/cynicism on the matter). Jr8825  •  Talk  16:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Copy-edited the first 1,000 words (down to 'Mission and activities'), rather extensively in places. Alas, that's less than a quarter of the rather bloated text. Any other volunteers? I'd very much like to see other eds take a crack at cleaning it up and boiling it down. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS:, : Please note that editing of this important article is in progress. – Sca (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some heavy copy editing of the entire article, including the sections after "Mission and activities". I've also requested a guild copy edit to improve the standard of English, although this will likely happen after any potential ITN listing. Overall though, I think the article's now in a reasonably presentable state. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously support. Also, this vote is so clearly being brigaded by ruSSian bots. Like holy shit, how can you people not see this?! Daikido (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you may want to reconsider/strike-through your comment. Calling a long-standing editor you disagree with a bot/troll may violate WP:NPA. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Perhaps an admin could convey semi-protected status to the article? – Sca (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose Solely on article quality. There are a number of unsourced claims. Once corrected I favor blurb I. Keep it short and to the point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough for posting. Well done to all those who worked on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The offending unsourced sentences have now been removed by another editor. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – : Wow, a huge improvement. Thanks for your quick work. At 4,200 words, the article has been pared considerably, although arguably it's still a bit long – but acceptable for such a complex topic. Спасибо. – Sca (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed you adjusted the blurb to "alleged violations of the country's foreign agent law". I'm not sure whether these violations should be described as "alleged" – it seems as though Memorial may well have failed to comply with the restrictions placed upon it, regardless of how unjust they are. Is it appropriate to act as though the Supreme Court's ruling isn't authoritative, even if it may have been politically influenced? Particularly as Memorial's defence appears to have been along the lines of "yes, we failed to do some administrative formalities correctly, but our group is a massive net positive for the nation". Jr8825  •  Talk  21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see this topic at MP/E. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news and the article is getting lots of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Reid

 * Strong support considering I made the same nomination while this one was being posted. jonas (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Not a fan of that controversy section, but good enough to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- and maybe consider a potential blurb. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent enough shape, Reid was certainly quite significant. Not sure if we should do a blurb here, he was a politician of national importance, but perhaps not quite the level we'd look for (if we generally only blurb heads of state). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in fair shape and whatever's not looks to be an easy fix. I think the contents of the criticism section could be worked into career/political positions/etc if there's a POV problem there. I would oppose a blurb at this stage: as far as political leaders/elected officials go, I think we have a good, informal threshold of head of state and/or government and don't see a real need for an exception here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The orange Criticism tag needs to be addressed and removed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support considering the article is in good shape, with nothing that needs major renevations. Maybe consider a blurb as well. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support also not a fan of the "criticism" section, but the rest of the article is in very good shape. (The subpage Political positions of Harry Reid is mediocre.)  Most of the content in "criticism" should stay in the article somewhere.  Does not quite reach the threshold for a blurb.  User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Criticism top-level section (and the associated tag) is now gone, and the content has (mostly) been moved within the article. Not perfect yet but certainly better.  Feel free to edit further - you will not edit conflict with me. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He was clearly impactful enough in US politics for an RD. However, I would oppose blurb as I don't believe he had that level of direct impact on the world. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD now that the "Criticism" section is gone. Not transformative enough for a blurb, in my opinion. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD as straightforward. Oppose blurb as not significant enough within the context of world politics. feminist (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(RD posted) RD/Blurb: John Madden

 * Strong support What a legend. Maybe blurb?  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article needs some work, but there's too many edit conflicts to do that for at least an hour. It should be cleaned up fairly easily, though.  I'm currently neutral on a blurb - it certainly should be discussed (he was "transformative" to both "sports broadcasting" and "sports video games"). User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't take too long to get to main page standards, but yeah we're gonna need to wait for the rush of editing to slow down. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Definitely should be mentioned, the man was an integral member of the NFL and of the world of American football and sports in general. May he rest in peace. xdude (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as stated above, this can be fixed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with caveat - Even I know how this is and students made fun of me for not knowing Aaron Rodgers. Article does need work. Personal life section is mostly unsourced. Currently 61 sources in the article though. With some clean up I would say it's adequate for blurb.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Not more notable than other coaches (he won one title and no tactical/strategy innovations disclosed); nothing special about being a commentator (if this is a large enough field) and his voice/catchphrases were used in a sports video game. Again very, very obscure Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The billions of dollars his namesake video game series have made over the decades proves that calling him "obscure" is ludicrous. And the fact that he was the definitive game analyst voice for NFL football broadcasting for decades as well (the whole reason his endorsement for the games was sought in the first place) only reinforces that. Does he rise to a blurb? I'm not sure I'd put him on the same level as Desmond Tutu, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Obscure" is laughable. What you meant to say was "well, I never heard of him." --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In what universe is he "very, very obscure"? He's as obscure as Desmond Tutu was (I didn't know who he was until he died -- still not an excuse not to blurb him). There is an entire video game franchise named after him. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support Significant figure in American football, video games, sports broadcasting. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Neither holding the highest winning percentage by a coach in modern history nor being the #1 commentator for several decades would quite clear the blurb bar, but being both certainly does. I don't think the video game adds anything to his qualification, but it does certainly reflects his place in the game.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (lack of sources). Oppose blurb as while a household name in regards to American football, he wasn't top of the field for all purposes nor does the article articulate any greatness. There are absolutely great sports coaches out there that would qualify or would have qualified if we did blurbs (eg Vince Lombardi). --M asem (t) 01:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To a non-fan, it seems Bill Belichick is the Margaret Thatcher of this bubble, with six championships. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb for above mentioned reasons. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb One of the top coaches in NFL History and a legend of the game. Rest In Peace. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb -- well known household name. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - we should make the blurb threshold higher, not lower. Harry Reid was probably more impactful. - Indefensible (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting, weakly support blurb. I'm not an ardent follower of the NFL but I knew who John Madden was, he certainly was one of the most well-known NFL-related people. I think a blurb is warranted here but I can see the argument against it too. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb Old man dies, end of story. His name alone has promotional value. It sells games and it can as easily advertise his updated article (with picture inside). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was stated that his death was highly unexpected .  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 19:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb, one of the most well-known figures in American football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, still lots of uncited material. Oppose blurb, he was it seems very famous among fans of one sport, but he doesn't seem to have achieved overly much even in that one narrow field. Unlike Desmond Tutu who was strongly impactful for his country and in the wider world. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD now the quality issues have been resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD: It seems like a lot of the arguments for/against blurb are more personal rather than focusing on the overarching objective of the blurb. I lean oppose blurb on the basis that the article doesn't really impress upon me the notion that he quite reached that level of notability. But regardless of the ultimate decision, I think his name being franchised onto video games is certainly no justification for blurbing. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delay blurb this is one of those topics where we should really wait for the non-US editors to comment. Regarding quality - there are still a few issues, I may do a cn tag run. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 03:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4 cn tags added. I tagged 3 places that I am skeptical of the accuracy, and one which is a direct quote.  There are other sentences without inline sourcing, but they are mostly dull facts easily sourced to a sports results directory. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 03:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, I initially considered a blurb as he was certainly at the top of his field, but I agree with the notion that the threshold should be higher. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb: it would be overly US-centric to blurb this. Of the Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, (American) football is probably the one with the smallest global cultural impact.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible argument. Don't oppose blurbs just because the event relates to a single country. See Rule #2 -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support blurb Household name 5.44.170.26 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, when article ready Even as a non-football fan, I think John Madden transcended the sport in popular awareness. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - recognizability or being a "household name" is not a criteria for posting a blurb, in the Internet era and particularly with social media there are increasingly going to be tons of people who go viral or are well-known but should not qualify for a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Top of his field. The article is looking pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a coach, Bill Belichick has six times his Super Bowl rings. As a sportscaster, Bob Costas has seven more Sports Emmys. As a video game mascot, he might lead the non-cartoon division. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But neither Belichick or Costas are at the top of two fields. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither is Madden. He's tied for distant second in one and above average in another. List of best-selling video game franchises indeed has him edging out the Star Wars stars. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the top of two fields to me(leaving aside his name recognition among millions of video gamers), but I appreciate hearing your opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The NFL website currently has a story with the headline "John Madden's unparalleled impact on NFL influenced generations of football fans". The NFL commissioner said "He was football." 331dot (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, eulogies are like that. WWE put Corporal Kirchner over hard recently, too. The top is quite objectively quantifiable. But thank you. Nice to feel appreciated, even backhandedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No backhand intended. ITNC does not function without people giving their opinions.  I do appreciate it. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Intended or not, superiority is a measurable fact in sports, not an opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, though, I think the commissioner meant that in a "Nobody loved football more than Coach" way, not like how Triple H is "The Game". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To butt in with this detail. Madden's name was plastered on the Madden NFL video game franchise which has sold 250 million copies and made $4 billion. If his role in American football is too American-centric then maybe his role in the video game industry would warrant a blurb? I first heard of Madden through the video games and didn't learn of his actual career until I was a teenager. Jon698 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where'd you read 250 million? Its article could use a source like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that the 250 million sales figure is not fully verified, but a sales figure of 130 million is according to EA themselves. That is still a massive amount which is more than the sales figures of The Legend of Zelda, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Super Smash Bros., and other video game franchises. For some reason the article kept the 250 million sales figure despite it being dispute and I replaced it with the verified sales figure. Jon698 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. A lot, anyway. Definitely his likeliest angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure of the best way to work his video game aspect into the blurb, so I didn't attempt to, but others may. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb yet another case of centrism. He could have been the top in his field, but in American football, a sport that beyond the borders of that country has little interest and/or popular relevance. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose an item 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 unproductive." It's also not true as the NFL now regularly plays a game in London and other international locations. The hundreds of millions of video games sold are also not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb A blurb for a sports coach and commentator? Just what exactly is the limit to the concept of someone being important in a particular field? If someone was transformative in the field of the study of birds with blue feathers, would they be blurb-worthy? Chrisclear (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I sincerely hope the suggested blurb is a big joke. There's absolutely nothing which sets him apart from many other coaches in the sport, and he died more than 40 years after ending his coaching career. Merely a mediocre coach as per this list with no acclamation as one of the greatest by anyone. So far, the only living coach who deserves a blurb in this sport is Bill Belichick.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As the writer, I can say it is not a joke. The NFL Commissioner said "he is football", and Madden did groundbreaking work in sportscasting. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "He was football." Again, that's about it consuming him. We all know a guy who "eats, sleeps and breathes" his job. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility. Looked like Muboshgu's doing to me! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This guy won 1 title, 13 other coaches won at least 2 titles. If every coach who wins a single major club title/world/Olympic championship gets blurbed then we would probably have 50-100 coach blurbs a year. Nothing in the article indicates any tactical/strategic innovations that he made. Nowhere near the top of a niche sport. Nothing in his commentary career indicates critical acclaim or insight. Being paid a lot doesn't equate to impact or insight. List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises shows that the videogame that he was the brand ambassador for is ranked #17 in total sales, and since when was being the mascot/front cover face a "field"/"endeavour" and is it possible to "transform" how to look pretty on the front cover. I know that Wikipedia is full of young white males, and I know that many WPians lie about their educational qualifications like Essjay and probably have trouble rearranging a linear equation, but are we going to blurb models/pornstars ranked #17 in front-cover appearances [chuckle, chuckle] ?? This empty rhetoric about "top of his field" is nothing more than fake news and alternative facts Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment is ludicrous. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of video game franchises, and you're saying that #17 isn't the top of the field? Mlb96 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Video/computer games have only been around for 40 years. The game is only ranked 17th and the top one has 6 times as many sales. Modern professional sport has been around for about 120 years. We would never blurb the 50th ranked player in terms of titles etc. Furthermore, he isn't the main component of the games, he's a supporting component. We would never blurb the marketing manager/agent/personal assistant/adviser of the 20th ranked musical band or the like. In_the_news/Candidates/May_2019 invented a new field of physics (a larger field than an icon in a game) and people brushed it off incorrectly as an "old man dies" and here we have guy in a narrower field with no technical improvements disclosed and a bunch of fan supports. Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, and oppose blurb. Not transformative, as pointed out by multiple editors, and practically unknown outside the US except as a name on a video game. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only If we were to get significant global reaction to his death, then a blurb could be warranted, but as it stands, it doesn't seems probable, even though his impact within NFL circles is incalculable. rawmustard (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only No more, just support. Too much impact, too much to count. (PenangLion (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
 * More of a comment than a !vote (although I'm leaning towards an RD appearance only, mainly because Madden was probably only known outside of North America as the namesake of the game series rather than his American football career) but I was wondering if the supports here would support a blurb for a death of a famous and iconic association football manager, someone like Alex Ferguson or people of his stature, for similar reasons to their support for Madden getting a blurb. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN is a Commonwealth news ticker, so any semi-famous Brit will get blurbed regardless of Americans' protestations. The people who accuse ITN of being US-centric are delusional; if anything, it's UK-centric. Mlb96 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Alex Ferguson will get blurbed, even if the Americans object (which they won't). Aside, while bias is real, life on Earth is very much impacted by America & English culture, so it's reasonable that they might show up more often than other countries.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a pretty terrible comparison though, because Ferguson is by far the most successful manager in the English game ever - he won 13 titles (the next highest is six). Apart from the video game thing, the equivalent here is someone like Howard Wilkinson or Howard Kendall.  Yes, Ferguson would get a blurb, but I'm struggling to think of another one who would. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – A big sports name, but not generally significant beyond U.S. football. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some of the opposition here seems based on a strawman argument. He wasn't the top coach in the NFL. But he was at the top of his field as a commentator for many years. And, while people outside the USA are commenting that football has less impact than other sports, it is important to point out that NFL games have higher TV ratings in the USA than any of the other major sports. He is also the face of one of the most successful video game franchises of all time, topping other major contenders like The Legend of Zelda. Those are the big arguments, not the coaching career, which is more like the icing on the cake. If anything, the fact that you could describe his career and then add "Oh yeah, and he also won the Super Bowl" is quite telling. I would support a blurb if it included the video game aspect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about this. I can imagine that someone who is synonymous with video games, someone like Shigeru Miyamoto, may get a blurb if they die, but others probably would only get an RD mention at most. Outside the US he was probably better known for being the namesake of the Madden series than his coaching career, and I imagine many people didn't even know he was a coach. Being a mascot by itself doesn't really seem worth giving a blurb in my opinion. I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here, but if some American personalities like Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan only got RD mentions despite arguably being more well-known internationally, I find it hard to justify Madden getting a blurb. And yes, I know that being country-centric is by itself not supposed to be an argument here, but if as mentioned above, it would sound ridiculous if every major coach in every major sport in every country got a blurb when they died. Would people here support a blurb about a famous English football manager or Japanese baseball coach if they were iconic in their home countries? <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 14:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're getting hung up on the coaching again. Nobody is arguing for a blurb based on his coaching career. That's the strawman argument I mentioned above. I said he was a commentator and face/voice/name of a video game franchise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So in which case, would supporters here support a blurb for Marv Albert or Hideo Kojima if they died? In addition, "nobody is arguing for a blurb based on his coaching career" is inaccurate as some of the earlier supports indeed cited his American football career as the reason for their support, not simply because of Madden the game series. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Coaching in American football is perhaps the most promising field to justify his notability for a blurb but he clearly fails. If we put coaching aside, sports broadcasting and voice acting in video games are only secondary sub-fields of television and the video game industry in the same way as hairdressing is a secondary sub-field of fashion. We can define hundreds of similar sub-fields and easily identify thousands of people like him. That's not what we're supposed to do for a death blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb A major figure in the NFL, yes. Possibly "top of his field" as a commentator. But to me is not one of the rare cases where we make an exception to putting the death of an 85-year-old man in the Recent Deaths section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Accomplished on many fronts across three generations (NFL/sports commentator/video game). CoatCheck (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - (Responding to the comparisons between John Madden and Alex Ferguson) Oh come on, comparing Alex Ferguson with John Madden by all aspects shouldn't even be a thing. John Madden is a good manager for his own field, but Alex Ferguson is one of the most coveted managers in, I don' know, 175 years of world football? He has more trophies than any other manager in history. Do I need to repeat the word? History. Adding an RD for one of the greatest of his field, a field that is popular and is followed among billions over the world, is definitely a necessity. John Madden is a great guy, but ask somebody outside the States, ask them who John Madden is, most of them won't even know who the hell that guy is. Maybe a few would point to that guy as the "guy who appeared in rugby games" (sorry). Ask who's Alex Ferguson on the other hand, you'll get a lot of responses, outside the States, in Australia, in Thailand, in Burkina Faso, or even in France. This is what will happen when you have one sport being popular in over 150-countries, and the other sport being popular in only 5 (or one perhaps). Trying to push a blurb for John Madden or even Alex Ferguson isn't going to help the Blurbs (Alex Ferguson might be a bare pass for the Blurb). If Madden is the bar set for the Blurb, for being a typical good manager, and a name that has resonated in video games, then I'll lose faith in it, because it is equivalent of making Charles Martinet's death into the Blurb because he voiced Mario, that famous guy. He's worth for RD, then RD-only it is. No more arbitrary arguments on statuses. It doesn't benefit anyone. (PenangLion (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
 * I don't think no one's making an argument to blurb Madden solely out of coaching merit. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just a response to the comparison earlier. Again, he's worth for RD, but not enough for his own blurb. (PenangLion (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Yes, but you are responding to a strawman nobody really argued for. I don't even think 90% of the people who played the game named after him knew that he won a Super Bowl. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a consensus for RD, but there are still two CN tags. Please fix them so we can post. --Tone 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Good lord, we can't even get the bloody Ashes posted in a timely manner, and yet we're talking about how this American football coach deserves a blurb? I think the bar needs to be especially high for that field, and John Madden does not meet it. Bill Belichick is the only name I can think of who would.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Not at the same kind of Mandela level prominence one would expect for a blurb, but a perfectly fine RD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blub not really close to blurb level. Of course support RD if/when article is of sufficient quality. Rhino131 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: clearly there is not consensus for a blurb (sadly). There is consensus for RD. Can someone add him there? As an aside, I do think that ITN is way too Commonwealth centric. Way too much stuff about soccer. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many people apparently have the misconception that football is a Commonwealth-related sport in the same way as American football is US-related. In reality, football is all over the world and zillion times more popular than American football (sport news feeds in most languages are overflooded with football news). A much better comparison would perhaps be to compare American football to cricket or snooker but even these sports are more popular than American football if we consider that India have a strong cricket team and China field very good snooker players. Alternatively, this may be in order to deliberately downplay the other parts of the world (equating 330 million people in the US to 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of y'all's arguments are ridiculous. First of all, I totally agree with Rockstone35, ITN is very much Commonwealth biased and centric. Top of his field = deserves a blurb. A legend to many people = deserves a blurb. This is big news, y'all. Even the NFL itself said that John Madden died unexpectedly and here we are saying it was. He deserves a blurb!  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Top of his field" and "legend to many people" is not a valid reason to get a blurb, there are innumerable fields beyond counting in reality. We are not going to blurb the greatest teacher of basket weaving, the champion of brick making, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Top of their field" is a valid reason to blurb but we're talking the best of the best, and that should be readily demonstrated on the article page (which I do not really see for Madden here). However it is absolutely right that "legend to many people" is not reason to blurb, unless we're talking many many reliable sources over the year. Otherwise we're dealing with popularity and that led the problems that have persisted since Carrie Fisher was given a blurb. --M asem (t) 01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that he wasn't top of his field, he was a slightly better than average coach, an unremarkable broadcaster and an unremarkable video game voice actor (the game's success, and #17 is not top of the field, did not result in any awards or similar for his role). Being "a legend to many people" is not and should not be a relevant consideration for a blurb. Even if ITN posts too much soccer (which I see no actual evidence of) that doesn't mean we need to blurb a run-of-the-mill "old man dies of old age" story as some sort of false balance. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * His role in video games is not that of "an unremarkable video game voice actor". It doesn't matter whether he won any awards - he was bigger than the entire video games awards system at the time.  That is what makes him a transformational figure in "sports simulation video games". User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But how important are "sports simulation video games"? In a community like Wikipedia, that category is probably going to be favorably biased due to demographics. - Indefensible (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already said I'm neutral on a blurb. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 20:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To the comments above claiming ITNC has a Commonwealth bias or soccer bias, let's put it into context. I don't know if it really has a Commonwealth bias, but a soccer/association football "bias" is not really unsurprising when you consider it's by far the world's most popular sport. Even the Super Bowl, the cream of the crop of the American games, pales in comparison to stuff like the World Cup, the UEFA Champions League, or arguably even the Premier League internationally. To be fair, it's not as if ITNC is adverse to featuring blurbs about deceased North American sports personalities. Kobe Bryant and Hank Aaron were both blurbs, and I imagine Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky will be too once their time comes. It's just that it's really debatable if Madden deserves a blurb given that he's arguably more famous for his game than his sports career, although as far as I can tell almost no one is actually opposed to him being featured on Recent deaths (apart from those opposed on article quality grounds; even most of the blurb opposes support an RD mention), it's just that people are split on if he deserves a blurb. If we're talking about American football, I imagine the only currently-living ones who may get a blurb in the future are Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Finally, I don't want to invoke WP:OSE, but it should be noted that John McCain, a far more influential and famous person (the latter at least internationally) only got an RD mention when he died, and so have many similar American personalities. Madden may have been a legend among many American football fans regardless of his coaching success, but the question of that's enough to deserve a blurb is another one entirely. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb This really felt borderline here but I think Madden just falls short of notability. If this were US Wiki or Sports Wiki then I think he's an easy blurb candidate. I don't think his notability within the field can be questioned (the "he is football" comment I think holds), the issue simply is the impact of that field. I say it's close because of how impactful and big American Football is in spite of being a largely US sport, due to cultural relevance, economic impact, and impact on forms of media (see the Madden games in this case), but just a little short. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Regionally notable individual without high profile in the rest of the Anglophone world.  Mel ma nn   23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, strongly support RD I don't believe Madden was important enough of a figure - in any of the fields he was involved in - to warrant a blurb. Within American football, I can think of several other figures who are more important or successful, and I wouldn't even give them a blurb. However, he's certainly important enough to be on RD, and the fact he isn't by now is ridiculous. At least put in on there in the meantime if people continue to debate a blurb. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason he hasn't been posted to RD yet is that the article was initially not of sufficient quality with many missing citations. That has now been addressed (there is one incomplete citation, but that's not (imo) a blocker but it's enough I want another opinion before posting). Listing someone on RD while discussion continues about a blurb is not without precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb I agree with Thryduulf. My neutrality on a blurb has run out; this will not obtain consensus as a blurb, so I am opposed.  As far as quality, I agree with Thryduulf that it's not spotless but it is good enough. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD is ready No more citation needed tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD posted Quality issues resolved. While there's been a lot of input regarding a blurb already, I'm leaving the discussion open on that front as it's only been one day.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Top of his fields - Super Bowl Winner, never had a losing season, Hall of Fame member. Broadcasting legend, 12 Emmy Awards among other broadcasting honors. Video game institution, with well over 4 billion dollars of Madden NFL sold over decades. A multi-generational icon in numeous fields. Unexpected sudden death. Add it all up, it deserves a blurb. Opposers utterly fail to convince otherwise. Jusdafax (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unconditional Support Madden reshaped and changed the game of American football in so many ways, words alone don't do enough to explain... Where would the NFL be without him!?!?  CPLANAS1985 (Male • T • C • TW • IG) 04:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hugo Maradona

 * A lot unreferenced, and two of the current references only mention him in passing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the Career section is unsourced (four paragraphs with zero footnotes!?). Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grichka Bogdanoff

 * Support Article is well-sourced. Mlb96 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The television career section could use expansion, but it doesn't prevent posting. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to me. Tradedia talk 11:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This guy has far less reach than John Madden and John Madden doesn't seem to be notable enough, so this guy definitely isn't. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All recently deceased people with pages are notable for RD. There is a blurb discussion ongoing for Madden, and there is not one going on here. Your vote makes no sense. Kafoxe (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The opposition against John Madden's inclusion is only limited for the Blurb, not RD. He is definitely eligible for RD. Don't spill the argument over here. (PenangLion (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC))


 * Support Article is in good shape. Mooonswimmer 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marked as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some contentious claims in the article are sourced to primary material (especially the unverified courtesy copies of referee reports on journal articles) or dead links. There is also a personal section cited (unlinked) to simply "Almanach de Gotha". Less critically one of the publications has no source/ID. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we have a page on Almanach de Gotha. Consider tagging inline to formally contest these points, in case your comments get lost in a pure vote count. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding tags.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sufficiently sourced. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now that both have died its absurd to continue delaying this any further. jonas (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See #RD: Igor & Grichka Bogdanoff above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as a joint entry. Stephen 23:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caliadi

 * Support, a small article but seems sufficient. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support covers bio details and work, with proper sourcing coverage. Joofjoof (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm worried it's a new article that hasn't yet been patrolled, particularly in the light of strong claims about his dismissal which relate to identifiable living people. Has anyone who speaks Indonesian and understands Indonesian media double-checked the sources? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can verify that the sources are, well, what it should be. No differences between the article content and the sources as far as I can tell. Juxlos (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Poking to see if they can take a look. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support seems GNG compliant and length/sourcing ok. Juxlos (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, no problem on sourcing Nyanardsan (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks everyone for the reviews. (I finally thought of just asking on the NPP talk page, which got a response within seconds.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021–22 Ashes series

 * Support - This a very dramatic result. The series has been won about as quickly as it possibly could have been. It's THE most important and oldest international cricket series. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality good as far as I could see. And even though I've never heard of this in the sligthest, I can't question nor say anything about the ITN/R, so "hail ITN/R", I guess. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no match summary prose. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302. The importance is not in doubt, but ITN is in the business of featuring prose not just tables or raw results as we are an encyclopaedia not a sports ticker. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't write in bullet points. Each match needs a prose summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The bullet notes are fine, but need supplementary match summary text to explain the matches. As in 2019 Ashes series. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Historical note: "In cricket, England lose The Ashes to Australia, after scoring 68, their lowest innings total on Australian soil since 1904". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight tweak, but makes Alt1 a bit unwieldy, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose on quality - for the second test there simply isn't enough of a summary yet. This is on ITNR and this is the correct time to post the result once the quality issues are addressed.  As far as the blurb - England getting bowled out for 68 in the second innings is remarkable, but I think that detail can be left to the article lede and not the front page. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support great work by the updaters. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm slowly working my way writing a prose summary for each day, but if someone wants to help, it would be much appreciated.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will join-in later tonight. Ktin (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Prose summaries have been added to the tests. Good to go. I am ok with either of the hooks. Ktin (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been updated with prose summaries.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 06:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Prose needs to be expanded and flow better (too fragmented), scores need to be in the format wickets/runs (Australian convention). Neutral cricket descriptors would be much appreciated. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) - See example, mostly written by me, at Indian cricket team in Australia in 2020–21
 * Support and marked as ready. Prose summaries have been added as requested previously. The altblurb is a bit misleading, because The Ashes were held by Australia before the start of the series, and therefore they could not be "lost" by England. Chrisclear (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb is in AmEng (it would be "retain" in British & Commonwealth English). Added altblurb2 to avoid this. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems okay to me in Australian English. The TV broadcast in Australia listed it as "Australia wins" and "Australia retains the Ashes" (not win or retain). Probably needs an Aussie to confirm whether wins or win is correct down under. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we wait much longer, we'll have to abandon for bad light. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Aussie, but the Sydney Morning Herald used "Australia retain". Either way, it's been 12 hours since this was marked ready.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Are all non-American Admins asleep, and Americans just won't post cricket? This is a bad look, again, again,....... HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's kinda crazy actually. The Memorial blurb was nominated after  this was marked ready, yet the Memorial blurb was posted before this one.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was because I posted the Memorial one, but I'd commented on this nomination. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted before I hit the sack here in America. No problem posting cricket., admins are volunteers here too, working on their own time. There is no need to repeat pleas for posting. Feel free to seek the admin tools if you are more available for posting than others(that goes for  too).  Good night. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, being stuck at home with family over the holidays has me going a bit stir crazy.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I reckon I'd make a great Admin, but there are far too many existing Admins whose blatant POV pushing I've called out over the years for it to ever be likely to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * can you check this again? User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * what am I being asked to check here? Note that I'm going to bed shortly (I'm on UTC), so may not see replies until the morning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it about the image that was not posted? Ktin (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything with the image because the proposed blurb didn't indicate what the image referenced(specifically, I assume an MVP or something but I know nothing about cricket matches). 331dot (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Root is the highest run scorer in the series, so far. He is also the losing (i.e. England) captain. Feel free to use as appropriate. Would have been good to have the Australian captain, but, they have had Pat Cummins as a captain for two matches and Steve Smith for one match. Will be awkward to split that way. So, might be worth going with highest run scorer, Root (pictured). PS: This performance of England notwithstanding, it is a beautiful game to follow. Ktin (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's my American bias but it seems odd to me to post an image related to the losing team(for comparison, only once has the Super Bowl MVP been from the losing team, and I don't think that is even possible any longer) so I would be happy to defer to someone else in that regard. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, we could just go with Pat Cummins's picture. He is the announced Australian captain for the series. He could not play the second test due to a COVID exposure and subsequent quarantining. Ktin (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that better. I've started the process. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a huge deal, but I'm tripping a bit on seeing the advertisement image promoted to the MP. Given our general practice of not using sponsor names for stadia and events, this seems less than ideal. Less a concern if we were posting a club championship, but that's not even the right kit for this event.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to either crop Cummins' photo to remove the off-topic club uniform, or switch to another photo in commons that has him wearing the Australian uniform? Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naren Chandra Das

 * Long enough (519 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient quality for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. On the short side that normally would not be sufficient for me, but has adequate coverage for the event that made the subject notable.  Spencer T• C 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: April Ashley

 * Support Oppose Seems well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now liberally tagged. Too difficult. Have access to none of the sources. Unable to find anything better online. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - article in good shape, with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. An interesting bio. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (WP:BLPPRIMARY) concerns: there are bio details only supported by autobiographies and a court ruling. Joofjoof (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be very helpful if the relevant claims could be individually tagged. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did ask... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support One CN tag shouldn't hinder an article's nomination. Overall it's in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems that multiple tags have since been added that need resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support after resolution. Transformative public figure, large nation's first, mysterious circumstances. No blurb, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Only £77.20 (ships from Ammanford, United Kingdom) A "real snip", as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Davis

 * Info in the infobox could use some footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "player stats" links at the bottom of the infobox typically support most of what's in the infobox, if it isn't already cited in prose. At any rate, I've also added more prose for his birthplace, high school, and career stats. Let me know if you there are any remaining gaps.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new additions, Bagumba. I think this wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but covers life and career. Joofjoof (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keri Hulme

 * Second career paragraph needs referencing, then it’s good to post. Stephen 08:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that. Fixed. Also, I believe this nom was correctly posted at 28 Dec as that was the date that the death was announced. MurielMary (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We go by date of death unless there’s a significant delay in the announcement of more than a few days. Stephen 10:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The claim in the lede that "Hulme's writing explores themes of isolation, postcolonial and multicultural identity and Maori, Celtic, and Norse mythology" is not sourced or explained in the body. Otherwise it looks good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - have added some citations and will add a bit more detail in the body. Should be ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape.  Schwede 66  17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naren Gupta

 * Comment Tone has been improved. Some quotes can be shortened. Joofjoof (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phua Bah Lee

 * Support blurb Yes as well, there was tribute paid by many leaders, including the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD at the very least. – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, support RD A domestic politician, only known in his own country and with a dubious national and international impact. Article meets quality requirements. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per Alsoriano. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manikka Vinayagam

 * Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Though this one is not a stub (Rater.js does classify this as a start class article), your larger point is valid. Might be a tad too short for the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Marc Vallée

 * Comment. Lots of cites to WP:IMDB atm. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The IMDb cites are all currently used in the same paragraph on the subject's early work in the 1980s. If verifiability is in question, perhaps that paragraph can be taken out till better refs become available? BTW, the Filmography section and the tables after that have no footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a cursory glance suggests that the article is ready for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: E. O. Wilson

 * No opinion on the article, but support blurb once ready. Wilson was most certainly a transformative figure in biology, even if not all his views have stood the test of time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A giant. Thriley (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, and consider prepending Crafoord Prize-winning. BD2412  T 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that all those bullet-points on his publications and awards need references. --PFHLai (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: There is a recently added main tag in a section (doesn't appear to be entirely founded to me but please review) and a single cn tag, nothing major to not post this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb this is not US Wikipedia, nowhere near transformative enough, and shouldn't be replacing Tutu (an actually important person) from the lead ITN. Also oppose RD as way too poorly sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tutu cannot stay in the lead forever, the blurb will get bumped down as is standard practice. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please indicate the areas that are poorly sourced. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two important deaths can happen at a time, no reason for opposing one for the other. If the drop from the lead is a concern, than can be handled by prolonging the stay of Tutu's image but eventually it will have to give space as well. Gotitbro (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment about the US should be disregarded. The work of a scientist will/can be built on by people from any country and benefit all people. It is not like a politician, actor, or a legal issue that can only affect a localised region. There are not enough science stories on ITN, and these should be judged by scientific impact, not whether the average person realises if it is important. Else it would just be filled by sport and entertainment fluff Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. In reviewing his article and the news about him, he seems to be at the top of his field, considered a modern day Darwin. I think the last scientist blurb we posted was Stephen Hawking so it would be good to have some other science areas represented. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb or no blurb, this wikibio should not go onto ITN till after the in the Work section is resolved. --PFHLai (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Not a high profile individual outside of their immediate professional field and country of origin. This nomination feels like a result of WP:BIAS.  Mel ma nn   23:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Stephen Hawking or Desmond Tutu were high profile outside of their fields, that's kinda the point here, they were at the top of their field. You seem to be saying that it's impossible to nominate anything to do with the US here without bias. The way to counter bias is to make nominations in underrepresented areas, not to suppress other stories. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Both Stephen Hawking and Desmond Tutu have had outsized impact outside of their immediate professional fields, and have at the same time been at the peak of their own professional area of expertise. Systemic bias comes in with the fact that no non-US scientist, only notable for their professional achievements, would ever be posted about in ITN. For example, see In the news/Candidates/February 2020 as an example of what happens when non-US scientists die (and this is only a RD nomination, not even blurb nomination). It's not about suppressing US scientists, it's about applying same standard to this nomination, as we would to any non-US nomination.  Mel ma nn   00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I work to do that every day that I am here, and have for years. We can only consider what is nominated. I hereby invite you to nominate persons equivalent to this one who are also at the tip top of their field and/or also compared to Darwin in inportance. That is the best way to work against bias. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD - prominent in his scientific field, but not a transformative figure in global cultural context. --Soman (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb The comment about the US should be disregarded. The work of a scientist will/can be built on by people from any country and benefit all people. It is not like a politician, actor, or a legal issue that can only affect a localised region. There are not enough science stories on ITN, and these should be judged by scientific impact, not whether the average person realises if it is important. Else it would just be filled by sport and entertainment fluff. And if 'cultural context' was required then a towering academic who lacks 'charisma' would be passed over for academic entertainers/social icons such as Ruther Bader Ginsburg (which I opposed) while physicists such as Murray Gell-Mann was passed over while Hawking was blurbed despite not necessarily being more notably at a technical level. Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb it would be really nice to get some academics as blurbs, and Wilson is more than qualified in terms of influence and importance. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD, oppose blurb article is not ready for main page - there are numerous awards and honours listed without citations. Also oppose blurb as not internationally influential. MurielMary (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm generally supportive of death blurbs for great scientists, but I need to contest his 'greatness' here. Firstly, biology is a very large and diverse scientific field, with molecular biology and genetics being perhaps the mainstream sub-fields nowadays. Secondly, he taught evolutionary biology, which is another attractive sub-field and used to be mainstream during his life span, but it seems like his main contributions were made to the highly controversial sub-field of 'sociobiology'. Furthermore, it's very strange to get the nickname "The New Darwin" without winning the Darwin–Wallace Medal at the very least. Thirdly, the article's structure looks very odd with the brief section on his career and lengthy section on his works. There are also unreferenced claims and the overall language has a hyperbolic connotation. All in all, he may have been a great scientist who introduced a new field, which unfortunately didn't become mainstream or led to any important scientific advancements, and, if biology in its broadest sense is his field, he was definitely not as influential as some of his contemporaries such as James Watson, Stephen Jay Gould and John Ostrom.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Prizes/honours now referenced Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Highly influential biologist and death is widely reported (global scale I mean his BBC obit called him "Darwin's heir"). Article up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Widely respected by the cognoscenti, but not a household name. (Also, old man dies.) – Sca (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Sca. Afraid I heard self-promotion, so no blurb. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's still an outstanding WP:OR tag for the section Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975 that needs to either be resolved or removed if no longer relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the one sentence which was cited with Wilson's own book. It appears the rest of the section is good with solid sourcing. The article is ready. Thriley (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Although certainly not my field, I was convinced by the same route as 331dot.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus only for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul B. Kidd

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Worldcat lists his first book as published around 1991. Could we say anything about his life before? Joofjoof (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find anything in either online or offline sources about early bio detail. If anyone can, I'd be happy for them to add it. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is going to fall off the list of active discussions soon. I'm not very familiar with ITN/C -- what can I do about that? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well,, time is indeed running out for this nom. There's less than 17 hours left. User:Joofjoof may have identified a gap in the coverage of Kidd's biography. IMO, the stuffs mentioned in the Other career section may well be what Joofjoof was asking about. Not sure. Perhaps another admin can come and take a look, please? Or perhaps someone can add more relevant materials to the wikibio? --PFHLai (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a gap for Kidd's early life, but per last month's nomination for Julie Brougham, we could say that the subject became notable later in life and the current article covers the notable parts with references -> Weak support Joofjoof (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sufficient for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sarah Weddington

 * Support Major figure in a landmark Supreme Court case. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Needs major sourcing help, particularly on the RvW section and papers that she co-contributed too. --M asem (t) 04:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have expanded the article with a little bit more info and sources. It's suitable now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Karolos Papoulias

 * Comment: Please add more refs. There are currently no footnotes in the section on his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most bullet-points in the Honours section are unref'd. --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't support a blurb for an article this short (well long enough to post but almost no details to explain why he would be blurb-worthy, compared to today's Desmand Tutu posting which clearly has the breadth of coverage to support a blurb). --M asem (t) 19:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality referencing is not good. Article quality will need to be improved significantly before this can be posted as an RD.  I'd also note that according to List of current heads of state and government, it is the Prime Minister in Greece that administers the executive, so unless he's being nominated as a blurb-worthy diplomat--which, based on the article, is a reasonable nomination--I don't think he's blurb-worthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I RD nominated this article, I did not add the blurb. Someone else did, and while his career indeed was impressive, I am personally for an RD due to the signficance not being as high and the article not as good, and thats exactly why I RD nominated it. So that’s where the discussion should be held. I have added citations for his time as foreign minister so the citations for the article should soon be done for a RD post. Cheers,, , BastianMAT (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, BastianMAT. Let's all focus our discussions on getting this wikibio onto RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only I believe there is a problem regarding his role as the Prime Minister of Greece due to less international coverage for him, so making this blurb doesn't much blurb-worthy. 36.77.102.62 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD: Looks good for an RD. Blurb has not been justified either by the nom or the person who added it, neither am I seeing the significance from the article or otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose He was for 10 years president of the republic and his wikibio only talks about his appointment and the end of his mandate. I don't think that a list of government positions he held is the best either. Very improvable article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the article is improved to reflect his political career better (I don't agree with those arguing that he doesn't deserve a blurb because of the article's length and lack of information. Please note that we posted a blurb for Zhou Youguang's death even though the article about him wasn't that detailed.). The death of a head of state of a European country with more than 10 million inhabitants who left his office only six years ago after he had held it for ten years clearly merits a blurb. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Youguang had two clear achievements, creating the Pinyin system and that he lived to 111. Probably nowadays we wouldn't have given him a blurb but his article did document those achievements. For a person that spent 10 years as HoS of a major country, however, Papoulis' article begs the question of what significant impact he had on his country and world politics. I'm sure there's more that can be written towards that, but that would be required to have something even as a minimum for a blurb to make sense. What's there is sufficient for an RD. --M asem (t) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comments: There are still a handful of {cn} tags, and the coverage has a big gap: a biography of the two-term president ought to have at least a paragraph or two about what he did during those ten years in office. Blurb or no blurb, this nom cannot proceed without these deficiencies addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb In fact, the same was said when I proposed that Jorge Sampaio should have a blurb, and it's only logical that it was rejected, since they are still cerimonial positions, with little less international transcendence than heads of government and, in the case of Papoulias as well, they didn't leave a special legacy worthy of recognition. As I have free time, I'm expanding his article and adding sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Cn's still outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , I've been fixing the cn tags and expanding the content of Papoulias wikibio with what I've been finding on the internet with English sources. Can you take a look at it and evaluate how it is now? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article has been fixed. Good work ! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD now that it is fully referenced. Kafoxe (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus only for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator Added too for the credits as he really did a great job on improving the article. If someone can also give him a credit tag, do that as I think he deserves one too for updating the article.
 * Much appreciated! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janice Long

 * Support. Only two cn tags remaining; corresponding text could be commented out if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No cn tags remaining as of now, good to go for RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. No tags. Good to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted--PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted, Closed) RD/blurb: Desmond Tutu

 * Support A monumental figure in twentieth-century history, and it's a GA. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - As Claudine says, "monumental figure" and thus blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as most famous archbishop. Truly monumental.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I thought it should say "at the age of 90" but I wasn't sure if that was the local dialect of English so I left the blurb alone, but it can be changed if I am in error. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing this nomination (in fact, I would have readily supported it), but was there a need to post this after just 52 minutes of discussion? Tube·of·Light 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the wikipage was reviewed and was deemed ready for use on ITN. Seems somewhat of a no-brainer to me. --PFHLai (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Highly notable figure, GA quality article, heading for WP:SNOW territory. Posting was appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand that this is a no-brainer, but I still don't think there was a reason to not wait for a bit more participation. Oh well, it's not a big issue to me, so let's leave it at that. Tube·of·Light 12:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Highly influential individual, helped take down apartheid and won a Nobel prize for his efforts. Article is in good shape as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting endorsement definitely noteworthy for a blurb. It would be good, however, if the blurb mentioned that Tutu got a Nobel Prize. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, see the recent one we posted about F. W. de Klerk. Gotitbro (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't list all his accomplishments in the blurb, but WP:ERRORS is the correct venue for proposed changes. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb is very bare bones right now though, apartheid is not mentioned at all (see for e.g. Klerk). I thought alt blurb/blurbs could discussed here? Anyhow a good article has been blurbed so not that much of a bother for forum change. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The nomination was opened and closed in 7 hours, whereupon a discussion of a blurb correction commenced at ERRORS which has now been open for 26 hours without action. This discussion should have taken place in the high-traffic venue of ITNC, and shuttling it off to ERRORS where it can be ignored seems to be improper.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is under discussion on the talk page, where you yourself have commented. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jonathan Spence

 * This wikibio needs more refs. In particular, the list of publications needs more sources. And in the infobox, the footnote at the end of the list of names of doctoral students does not seem to be a helpful source. --PFHLai (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no more {cn} tags left. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Wayne Thiebaud

 * Under "Notable works", only one of dozens of bullet-points has refs. There are a few footnote-free paragraphs, particularly in the Career section. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Adding new cn tags. Article far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ray Illingworth

 * There are quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) James Webb Space Telescope

 * Note: this image is from NASA TV so it ought not to be copyrighted - maybe someone can bother to upload it here. 2A02:2F0E:D003:2E00:6898:79D7:D00B:2CE8 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That image was taken by ESA's upper stage and is likely not owned by NASA. May I suggest File:James Webb Space Telescope Launch.jpg instead which was shared by NASA on their Flickr with an appropriate license?  Mel ma nn   13:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC use of that image is credited to Arianespace which would suggest it's copyrighted to them. (I don't want to think about copyrightability of a still from a video taken in outerspace on a camera that may or may not remotely operated.) -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - YES! Finally after 10 years! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Rushed to here to support, this isn't an RD nomination though. But Strong support for me on this one, the successful launch after many years of delays and one of our finest instruments yet is definitely worth it. Ornithoptera (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - A bit rushed. Added templates for the nominator, I'm not sure if its the same person like last time? If so, please make your own changes. (PenangLion (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Support - Besides from the comment, definitely a must for the ITN. (PenangLion (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC))
 * I have my concerns on the blurb's length though, it should be shortened. PenangLion (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly relevant, and excellent Wikipedia coverage.  Mel ma nn   13:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I've been waiting for this moment since I've read about this in my childhood!!! Article condition is currently good and all well referenced. And the fact that an IP nominated this is just cherry on the top!!! --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Shorter alt-blurb provided. Launch site is not as important as the telescope or its mission for ITN purposes --M asem (t) 14:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious notability, there is some issue as to the when, but if we treated it as a probe arrival is a non-event since it will still need to unfurl. First light is to other option but that is going to be testing and calibration rather than groundbreaking science so I'd suggest now is the best time to post. 3142 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too excessive if we do one ITN item now for the successful launch and then one ITN item in approx 6 months when JWST is fully deployed at L2 Lagrange and passes all the testing and self checks, and begins the science work.  Mel ma nn   15:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This blurb were basically going to be posted on December 23 but not happen due to WP:CRYSTAL. Altblurb preferred. 125.167.59.84 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Historic. I'd also support a second blurb when the telescope is fully deployed per Melmann. Davey2116 (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above, but preferably with altblurb2, or some shorter variant of it (the current variant is worded as in the article lead). This is because what most excites many of us about the telescope is its alleged ability to find free oxygen around exoplanets, which would seem to be near-proof of photosynthesising plant-life on such planets. Any failure to find oxygen around any exoplanets would also seem to be interesting support for the Rare Earth hypothesis. Unfortunately a perhaps-too-quick glance over our article leaves the initial impression that it does not (or at least not yet) have much to say about this beyond what is said in the lead paragraph and currently repeated in altblurb2. I may try to add some such details myself, but Christmas events are likely to prevent me from doing so. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * NASA had this article about it on 6 Jan 2020 (tho I note their qualifier "may" in their title, and "possible" in "possible biosignature" in their text)): New Technique May Give NASA's Webb Telescope a Way to Quickly Identify Planets with Oxygen.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ultra Strong Support This is perhaps humanity's greatest achievement. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 16:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll go with the basic blurb since the alt ones are a bit long. --Tone 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched to Ariane flight VA256, carrying the James Webb Space Telescope (depicted), is launched from the Guiana Space Centre. --PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some clarification as to who is operating the probe/program would be good for clarity. From what I can gather it appears to primarily be a NASA mission, so adding that in the blurb is welcome. Gotitbro (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is too much for a blurb since it's multinational. You certainly don't want to appoint a arbitrary "lead", references to the "NASA" Hubble have been causing annoyances for years on a 50/50 joint venture. 3142 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 1.3 million kilometers left to go. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * JWST and upper stage observed from Scotland. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gwendolyn Killebrew

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. More than long enough and with enough footnotes across the prose. AGF'd non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Any clarity on the year of birth? The two encyclopedia sources state 1939 but the age at death is given as 80 in several sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  An RD shouldn't have contradictory facts about a person's age. One the one hand, the article is open-ended about her birthyear ("1939, or 1941)", but then later defintively states that she died "at the age of 80".  They need to be consistent, one way or another, based on the weight of the sources.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagumba Generally: opera singers have tried to be taken for younger than they were, she would be one of many in that respect, and we won't even know if she "tried" or if the date was just misread at some point. We talk two years, and two years which don't matter for her achievements. The encyclopedia that I can see, which is the "bible" for opera singers, has 1941 which matches the age at death given by the Munich Opera where she worked the longest. I'd just accept that and mention the other in a footnote. We may ever know which one is right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you and other subject experts. I only ask that we either 1) pick one birth year (based on weight of sources) and mention their age at death or 2) be open-ended on the birth year and don't defintively state a death age. Happy New Year.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just taken the age at death out for safety (I think it's quite likely the subject shaved a couple of years off her dob at some point), without having noticed this comment -- do you really need it in, ? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seemed like had settled on 1941 as the birth year. In that case, I'm OK with the age 80, since there are no longer multiple birth years, but I don't "need it in" either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Going offline now, so I'll leave someone else to decide... Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fact is that all obits I've seen state "at age 80". If we go by these sources, we can as well say so in the article, but it's nothing I'd want to waste time over. We don't know yet what a gravestone will say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article covers career and bio details. Joofjoof (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. D. Crowe

 * Please be reminded that the Discography should be fully referenced. There are also a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the footnotes. Referencing in this wikibio is now good enough for RD. However, this wikibio is a bit short (1628 characters of readable prose), so it barely exceeds the 1500-character minimum to qualify as a non-stub. IMO, this is READY for RD, but please add more text, if possible. --PFHLai (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Mo So massacre

 * Comment - I would suggest restructuring the article. The blurb isn't grammatically correct, and is difficult to read. (PenangLion (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment - The blurb could use some work, but I support its inclusion. This has become a really big thing in the news at the moment, quote literally making headlines. Dunutubble (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Major, ongoing news. Thriley (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Informations further added into the article. The blurb really needs restructuring. But I support its inclusion, since it is a big news at the moment. Cyclonicationly (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article is orange-tagged with an update tag, as the Save the Children staff were found dead. Article needs additional updates.  Spencer T• C 17:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Bottolfsen

 * Support seems good IMO. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Bangladesh ferry fire

 * Comment – Very widely covered, with a sizable death toll, but at 285 words (1,400 characters) article is barely a stub. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I wanted to work on the Madagascar article but I didn't have any free time. I'll try to expand this one when more information is available. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced. And article looks passable, more information will be entered as it comes through. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it is well referenced, passable, and important enough based on the coverage received that it should probably be mentioned. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced, large number of deaths. Has received plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant and tragic event. Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-written as Fire breaks out on a ferry in Bangladesh, killing at least 40 people. --PFHLai (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Mirabella

 * Comment. Bit concerned about the section on her being fired from Vogue (though Newhouse has been dead since 2017). Is there nothing else to say about her life outside work -- education in 1950, marriage in 1974, death in 2021 seems a little sparse. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've hidden this for now; the reference fails to give page numbers and I've failed to find it in a quick look at a preview of the book. Page numbers for other uses of this book and for her autobiography would also be helpful, as would an independent source for the claims based purely on her autobiography. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Tidied up and ready to go. MurielMary (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Didion

 * Extremely important voice in American literature. Let's get this Main Page ready as soon as we can, if it's not there already. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would be best to update the article and take care of a number of "citation missing" tags.
 * Support - Based on the looks of it, its worthy of an inclusion, but I agree with the statement above, the missing tags need to be updated. (PenangLion (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Oppose inclusion is based only on article quality, and many more sources needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. On a quick look, the article is a bit of a mess. It looks to have been the subject of an educational assignment and it shows; there's significant duplication between Career and Personal life sections and a very choppy feel, as well as some important missing sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Support The wikibio seems close to being ready, but there is some cn tag and the "Published works" section is still almost without sources. Fix all this before the nomination is archived. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added sources to the Published Works and dealt with the CN tags.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work! Marking it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Ready. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Great work by and other updaters.
 * Posted Stephen 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Launch of the James Webb Space Telescope

 * Oppose: this is absurd. It's not even December 24 in the location of the launch and we're posting things that are scheduled for December 25? This is a very WP:CRYSTALBALL nomination. The launch was already delayed from December 22 to December 25 due to weather. It could happen again.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 12:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTALBALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." --Xarm Endris (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply to non-article pages such as WP:ITN/C. Can someone close this and reopen this 2 days from now? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose way too soon, as it hasn't happened (and until it actually happens, we shouldn't assume it wil). In addition, people shouldn't be adding dates in the future as headers, as this will screw up the bot. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Close and revert - This nom also resulted in the creation of a malformed category in ITN/C. This is going to screw up the bot that automatically creates this category when December 25th rolls around at 0:00 GMT. WaltCip- (talk)  13:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Demolition of the Pillar of Shame

 * Oppose minor event, and keeping in mind that Hong Kong is part of China, "China's tightening grip on the once autonomous city" is not surprising (not to mention it's a rather anti-China phrasing, as would featuring this event on ITN). Banedon (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how posting the event on ITN is anti-China at all. If Wikipedia was around in 1989, would posting the massacre itself be anti-China? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but the massacre itself was a much more significant event than the demolition of one of the many memorials to the event. The anti-China aspect of it stems from what one chooses to report, and by choosing to report this (as opposed to, say, the 2021 Madagascar shipwreck or the Malaysian floods below, it conveys a clear message that we consider this removal to be inappropriate. Banedon (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stated above, minor event. Only symbolic effect and not in a wider sense. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is extremely widely covered; ABC News, Al Jazeera, AP, NBC News, NPR, The Australian, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, HuffPost; I could continue working down WP:RSP, but I feel the point is made - the coverage of this clearly indicates that it has significance beyond a "minor event" (note that while some of these are reposted AP articles with minor edits, many are independent articles) BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose statues are being removed for various reasons all over the globe. This is just part of the ongoing drive to revise history.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... per all the previous opposed comments. A poignant commentary on the Chinese regime, but just a footnote historically. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it could be used as a candidate for DYK instead. (PenangLion (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Oppose - Yes, China is engaging in historical revisionism, but it's nothing they haven't already done for years, especially given efforts in the U.S. to tear down statues and memorials relating to the Confederacy. We have no illusions as to the sort of message that China wants to portray to the world.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Franklin A. Thomas

 * More than long enough (4532 characters or 706 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. It would be nice if the deadlink in Ref. #3 can be fixed or replaced before the link to this wikibio goes on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready the lead needs to be updated now that he is no longer living e.g. cannot use "since" + year for a person who is no longer alive. MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the word 'since' from the intro. --PFHLai (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Poh Lip Meng

 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Kinsella

 * I think it's ready. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More than long enough (4149 characters or 655 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is indeed READY for RD. Please consider mentioning the Rooney Prize in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frans Lebu Raya

 * Support Article has good length and sourcing. Joofjoof (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good quality Nyanardsan (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dmitry Zimin

 * Comment – Looks fairly comprehensive (about 760 words) & well documented. – Sca (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Long enough and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY FOR RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Really outstanding scientist, businessman and philanthropist. ruASG+1 16:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gary Lee Sampson

 * Comment Apart from the citation needed issues, I'm not completely convinced he's even notable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No blurb for this guy, then. --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support There are still two with tags. I'm not convinced that he is notable either. Why a large majority of American criminals have the "honor" to have a wikibio? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Alexander Albrecht

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY FOR RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Grimes2, and I'll add, - he was great! GRuban, any chance for an image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I could find, sorry. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Copy-edited. Looks good to go. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P. A. Ibrahim Haji

 * Long enough (2925 characters or 480 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY FOR RD.--PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Requesting an Admin's attention on this one. The article has been waiting for some time now. Runs the risk of falling off the page soon. Ktin (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ktin. I'm watching this now. As far as I can see, this is good to go. My preference is that anything going onto ITN gets reviewed by more than one pair of eyes (besides mine). If any uninvolved editor can review it and post their support! vote here, I can promote this to MainPage right away. --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks PFHLai. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Myrna Manzanares

 * Support Article is a good length and fully referenced. Breaking Belize News looks generally reliable, and the local evening news should also cover the story. Joofjoof (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added obit from Channel 5 Belize. Joofjoof (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good choice. Belize is an interesting multicultural country that almost never turns up in the news. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Madagascar shipwreck

 * Support because the death toll is high enough & the article good enough for it to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oddly missing from most RS coverage, for some reason. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the media don't take much interest in accidental sinkings of ships in poor countries which have no international angle. However, the sources are sufficient for the article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article is barely more than a stub (1575 characters). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Translation: 293 words of text. – Sca (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointlessly translating, and doing it based on a different version of the article, so it makes no sense (and isn't a translation). Your pointless comments like this make such a positive contribution to ITNC.... Considering a stub is under 1500 characters, posting the number of characters is entirely sensible. Whereas you posting useless replies like this isn't. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you too, and all the best in the year ahead. – Sca (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, its clear this user is more interested in antagonizing others than contributing. We would all do well to stop feeding him.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your invective violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Disgusting and Inappropriate, especially now. Adieu toujours. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you reinforcing my point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TLW – Sca (talk)


 * Weak support Tragic shipwreck but the article is barely over a stub. Gotitbro (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge Gellé is a stub fork which can be incorporated into this article. Woah, he really swam 12 hours to the shore after a botched rescue. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Major incident worthy of an inclusion, but the article's quality is questionable. There are some phrasing errors that needs correction, and there isn't enough information. (PenangLion (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC))
 * Support short but well-sourced. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kimera Bartee

 * Support Sourced and comprehensive enough.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Malaysian floods

 * Comment The damages of this flood should be probably listed in the blurb rather than how many displaced, since it is over $70 million USD. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. I share the concern of many that we over-emphasize mass casualty events at ITN, and there are two events currently posted with dramatically larger impacts.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The only disaster currently on ITN which has a larger impact than this is Typhoon Rai. Jim Michael (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Setting aside that my comment is two days old, Haiti has a higher death toll as well. This would also leave us with two mass casualty events deriving from typhoons in the same area.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now I don't believe that the economic impact is the decisive factor in this tragedy, as well as in other tragedies. It's something natural and inevitable. So far I don't see an ITN-worthy number of fatalities. For now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll has risen. —Ainty Painty (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the number of fatalities is comparable to another previous flood on ITN, these floods had around 5. I do not want to "ignore" this event based on the casualties metric, however I agree that economic impact is minimal/localized and makes it less relevant than the other flood, as well as other events taking precedence. Symphoricarpos albus (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid comparable, as it was not posted.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Here's a better example, Tropical Storm Kompasu (2021) that was posted. There was discussion there about death count (40), with the consensus being that there's no minimum. I think the point that that metric isn't the most important is still applicable.Symphoricarpos albus (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A large amount of rainfall is expected for the coming days which will make the problems much worse. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose floods doing flood things. Tragic, but in the end not ITN level for weather. <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 01:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It is the deadliest floods in the country since 1996/1971, and is a major chapter on climate change in Malaysia. PenangLion (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... with a change. Widely covered, reasonably complete and impactful. But the 300-word 'Connection to climate changes' section seems overdone. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the article still need updating? Seriously, we've let in ITNR items that are far, far, far less important than this slip by too easily. I mean, actual rivers burst its banks and caused deaths. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily more updating, but more referencing would be helpful. --PFHLai (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual flooding with significant destruction and deaths. Article also looks fine for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sub-sections on the impact on Selangor and Pahang are short and have zero footnotes. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is currently the deadliest floods in the Malay Peninsular, and the deadliest tropical cyclone to affect the country since 1996. The death toll is still rising. PenangLion (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the severity of these floods is an issue anymore. This is indeed ITN material. The question is whether the wikiarticle is ready for use on MainPage. Please make sure the numbers, especially the scary big ones, are accompanied by references. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the fact that these things don't happen every day, every year, or even every decade. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine, event now looks important enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the wikiarticle looks ready, except that there is an orange tag in the Criticisms section that needs to be addressed before ths blurb goes on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because of the death toll & extent of the damage caused. The article is easily good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Floods in Malaysia leave at least 37 dead and displace more than 68,000 people. with numbers to match those currently found in the article. The orange tag is now gone. --PFHLai (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb needs to be updated as death toll is now 41, with 8 missing. (PenangLion (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC))

(Posted) RD: Madhur Kapila

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY FOR RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Armenia wins Junior Eurovision

 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the important (ITNR) event is the Eurovision Song Contest, this is the junior version. --Tone 12:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose (ec) posting this youth competition; the regular one is ITNR, I believe, but that has more visibility. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose youth events aren't generally ITN-worthy, this event is not covered prominently in sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, youth/junior events like this really aren't top tier. --M asem (t) 13:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Better suited for ITN on Portal:Europe? --PFHLai (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert H. Grubbs

 * This wikibio is long enough and has enough footnotes in expected spots, and thus looks good enough for RD purposes. However, when I clicked on a few of the linked refs (spot checks only -- I did not check every ref), I found a number of deadlinks. Can these ref-links be refreshed, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Grimes2. This is GOOD to GO on RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Chilean general election

 * I don't see any prose update with those RS calling Boric the winner and showing Klast's concession. Updated tables are not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment article needs prose and updates. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support huge upset in Chilean politics, but can someone find a better photo? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Photo swapped. Joofjoof (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Better, thanks This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work There is no prose whatsoever in the results section. The French article can help as a starting point. Joofjoof (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more results prose. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Joseph2302. While OrbitalBuzzsaw does have a good point that it was a huge upset, the article needs work. Fakescientist8000 (talk)
 * Comment on Alt Blurb While it is true that he leads the Broad Front, it would be better to link to Apruebo Dignidad, which is the electoral alliance. BSMRD (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support It is a game changing result for Chile, including the youngest elected head of state in the world and the president elected with the largest number of votes in Chilean history. I don't see however why are we using a medium quality picture taken from a video when we have the official portrait available in Commons. --B1mbo (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, Elections such as this one are important and should come in the news.The article contains enough information, but it would be better to divide it into headings. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This nomination was removed for some time by an anonymous editor, and I nominated it in the meantime. Consider that as a support by itself. --Bedivere (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Much more notable than the prime minister of Tonga. Also many people are following this story. hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is ITNR, so no need to pile up the supports. As it has been pointed up above, some prose about the reactions/aftermath is missing, until then this cannot be posted because the article is not ready. People familiar with Chile should not have problem filling that in. --Tone 19:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with some content from the Spanish Wikipedia. I think it would do fine with some copyediting, but so far it's ready to go IMHO. --Bedivere (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is now ready. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the adjective "leftist" derogatory in the United States? I know it is not the intention of the person who proposes the blurb, but maybe it can generate some inconvenience. And perhaps something could be added about the big upset it has caused. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't an upset. Boric was favourite since the begging of the race. The upset, perhaps, was Klast get to the second round (his win in the first round was a surprise for many people). See all the opinion polls. Besides, I'd rather my original blurb which is more neutral. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 00:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are we using an old photograph of him, when we have the official one released by Gabriel Boric's team? --B1mbo (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * cause it has been 29 days and Boric's team has yet to confirm that they have officially released the image for the licence needed for it to be used on wikimedia. If anything, the image is scheduled to be deleted tomorrow so using it on the ITN page today is a bad idea.27.123.136.73 (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, let's keep questioning why he hasn't sent another e-mail to OTRS while he is being elected President. Wikipedia, always surprising. --B1mbo (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is nice of English Wikipedia to not use an image that may be violating his copyright... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The file was released under CC-BY-SA by the President-elect himself and the document is available already on OTRS. So, no, it's not violating any copyright. --B1mbo (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the OTRS has not been properly verified means it isn't released properly, and we shouldn't be using it until it is. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 07:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could someone give me "the credits". Thanks. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Although PK3 gave them to you, remember also that you can give credits to yourself if you need them in a hurry. WaltCip- (talk)  19:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did nominate this article too (in a period this nomination itself had been removed) and provided significant updates to the election article, should I too get credits? Bedivere (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do so shortly!-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you! Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Drakeo the Ruler

 * Weak oppose lots of discography (mixtapes section) is not sourced. Apart from that, looks fine to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Added citations to discography. Mooonswimmer (talk)
 * Support now that it is referenced comprehensively. Kafoxe (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Career section still has quite a few unref'd materials. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk)
 * Comment: Added missing citations. Mooonswimmer (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be fully referenced and ready to go now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Marín

 * Comment, we cannot use either of those sources (Daily Mail and Metro) as RSes. --M asem (t) 22:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . --PFHLai (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too many outstanding cn tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Isakson

 * Support - It is a bit light for who he was, but at the very least there are no longer any CN tags, and nothing else that would prevent posting to the main page from what I can see. Kafoxe (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support I believe that the coverage of his political career could be extended. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. There are too many "he won the re-election ... with X% of the votes" without telling us what he did during each term. Need to elaborate. --PFHLai (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Ericksen

 * Support There is still one cn tag left, but that doesn't prevent it from being included in the Main Page. Of course, it would be better to be fixed before. Otherwise the wikibio is in good condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a ref for that paragraph in the talk page, as the page is currently protected. Whitsunderland (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Good article with sufficient references. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment: The last cn tag is resolved, thanks to the reference Whitsunderland mentioned and one other source I added. Kafoxe (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Osagi Bascome

 * Thanks for the nom, long IP address!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive and well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Long enough with 2508 characters (443 words) of readable prose, and with footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Rogers

 * Comment I don't care about the blurb, but Rogers should be in the RD-listing right away. If it wazs good enough yesterday, today too so. -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t good enough yesterday. Stephen 08:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was failing BLP yesterday, it should have been deleted. Good enough yesterday, good enough today. The higher bar is only for blurbs, as this pages intro says ("... Other articles can also be linked"). Strange that MP should miss a RD name because of this. Sort of defeats ITN essence. And again: no rule for this found. -DePiep (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "ITN essence", DePiep? You may have gotten ITN mixed up with Portal:Current events. RD in ITN is not the same as Deaths in 2021. --PFHLai (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am quoting the from the lede of this very page named we both are posting on.   No need to divert. Now, the essence of the "N" part is that it is currently, eh, news. Adding a name days later misses that. Nothing to do with WP, all with the recentism of news. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please quickly fix the problems in the article. --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. As you can read, I state that because it is News, and as an RD not free for us to choose timing of Mainpage appearance, add it to the RD hlist right away. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DePiep, if you want this article or any other article on RD, please help fix that wikipage quickly so that it can be used on RD while the news is still fresh. Timeliness is not the only criterion. --PFHLai (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... sound effect. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Now what do you not understand? -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now many cn tags have yet to be resolved. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until citation needed tags fixed. If thinks this is ready, they clearly don't understand that everything needs to be sourced before posting, which is a clear ITN rule. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not about "understanding". I am asking where that rule is. So far, I only found #Top section here that clearly differentiates between blurb and "other articles": "A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked."
 * WP:ITN: Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. Unsectioned paragraphs like in this article mean it doesn't have the article quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for that link. At last, a base. Now I do sense a slight diff with the top section here I quoted. But alas, time to change something. WP should not miss another Colon Powell or Stephen Sondheim RD for days this way. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP did NOT miss Powell or Sondheim for days. They got onto Deaths in 2021 quite quickly. Their biographies got updated quickly. But it took days to fix them up to qualify for RD. Please help fix up the Rogers article instead of complaining here that it's not yet on RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The wikibio currently carries about fifty {cn} tags. Such deficiency needs to be addressed before this nom can proceed. Please add more refs to this article. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this guy until now, but I've taken steps to clean the article in order to end this turmoil-y thread. Some promotional and unreferenced sections have been removed. Only the listing section needs more reference. I'm off to go to another RD project, so if someone would continue the referencing process it will be appreciated (p.s. don't use rsh-p.com as a reference since it's their website). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Barely meets ITN quality standards for RD. We generally should not rely on mass pruning of articles to meet ITN posting standards, but whatever the current consensus is on that, this article now seems to be suitable for posting. Hectoring and haranguing will never get a subpar article posted any faster.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been greatly improved. Thriley (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks great now. Nice work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work, indeed. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sayaka Kanda

 * Please be reminded that Discography and Filmography sections should be fully referenced. --PFHLai (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rusmono

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Osaka building fire

 * Oppose Article is far too short at this time, three short paragraphs is not enough for the main page. If sufficiently expanded, this may be ready for the main page, bit it is not yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't create this. Just did some category work. Looks like it was created by . -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be updated now. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and will be updated over time. However, the article says 24 people died not 27 per blurb. Could we mention something about it being a suspected arson in the blurb? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, Except for the number of dead, which can be corrected, the article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Enough info on article/well cited enough to be ITN-worthy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Reuters, Guardian put toll at 24. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, and also information from the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (the central government agency responsible for civil defence in Japan) also states 24 deaths. It seems that the death toll has since been corrected.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready; article needs proper sourcing, not external links in text. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a formating problem, not a sourcing problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But citations should be in reference tags, since ITN articles are to show quality of how we work. This is a trivial fix but it does need to be donee. --M asem (t) 03:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been fixed now, though I agree that external links are not proper sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. I fixed them last night. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine now, and article is definitely ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per notability and quality of the article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New Prime Minister of Czech Republic

 * Comment we've already published the formalization of the coalition... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose One rather long paragraph in the "political activism" section remains unreferenced. Fix that and this will be good to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment he's not the head of state, as the President of the Czech Republic is, so surely this isn't ITNR? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's whomever has actual power, be it the president or the PM; it's not just head of state anymore. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to List of current heads of state and government it's the PM, not the president, so ITNR is correct. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The policy at WP:ITNR states, "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." The prime minister of the Czech Republic is listed as the primary executive, so THAT is the position that qualifies for ITNR.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In line with the nomination for Bulgarian PM, we posted the result of election in October with Fiala likely PM, so this would be a duplication. I'd only support posting twice if at the time of the election it is not sure who will head the government, and then when the government is formed. --Tone 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as non-ITNR Since we posted formation of the coalition with Fiala as PM, this is not ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we already posted this change of government on 10 October. No need to post it again. This would be like posting the results of the US election, and posting it again on the day the President takes office. Which makes no sense. This is a stale nom, as the election was in October. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Rai

 * Wait until impact, if any, is known. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, no demonstration of an ITN-worthy impact. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for now it's not notable. We will talk about it when the typhoon causes, if it happens, destruction and a significant number of victims. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not noteworthy at this stage. Nominations of this ilk should wait until the impact is well understood.  Article is in very good condition. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reuters reports toll of 12. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death toll is not more than an ordinary storm for the basin. 14:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Preceding comment posted by Hurricane Noah. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's not about the number of deaths, it is about climate change/global warming causing severe weather events such as in the US concurrently this late in the year and extremely-rapid change to cat-5 intensity.
 * I edited the blub to include super typhoon, ect. but it still feels inadequit considering the impact in my slightlt biased opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴⍨talk 18:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't really cover events just because they may be tied to global warming. ITN is not good for superlatitive stories (eg this being the strongest storm since 20XX). We are looking at deaths and damage, not just that it happened during a period where these storms can happen in that area of the world. --M asem (t) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the "super" as the designation is unofficial. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Death toll has risen to 12. I also added an altblurb with the death toll. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage on Saturday indicates a toll of 30 or more.    – Sca (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 31 deaths, php25 billion in damage. Not an "ordinary" storm for the Philippines anymore, as Odette/Rai will certainly be retired. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 18:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Destroyeraa  HurricaneEdgar    23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support we've clearly passed the threshhold for significance. Article quality is good.  May want to modify the blurb in coming days to indicate when/if the typhoon makes landfall in Vietnam. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as it is a significant weather event and article is good. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – updated blurb, Associated Press has the death toll at 112. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sunday coverage agrees on 100+. — AP, BBC, Reuters – Sca (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Post-Posting Support – This storm did a significant amount of damage in the Philippines, and the current death toll is at 376, likely to exceed 400 in the coming days. This makes it the deadliest tropical cyclone of 2021. The article is also in really good shape. This is definitely deserving of an ITN posting.  Light and Dark2000  🌟 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The latest death toll stands at 376+. The blurb should be updated.  Light and Dark2000  🌟 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Log4Shell

 * Support Reports are calling this a major cyber incident and while the fallout is presently low (compared to something like the Ukraine cyberattacks a few years back), the resolution is not well known and its clear parties are trying to exploit it. --M asem (t) 02:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat stale, as it was announced on 9 December, and patched three days earlier. IT folks have been running around fixing this for more than a week and a half now. Stephen 05:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this story is a week old. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale. This was publicly disclosed December 9. TarkusAB talk / contrib 08:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This still seems quite live and in the news. For example, the current BBC headline is Log4shell: US demands Christmas Eve deadline for hack fix.  The talk is of "waves" just like COVID and they are just starting. This is a lot more significant than the latest bus plunge or politics in Tonga.Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this became public on 9 December, which would have been correct time to post on ITN. The oldest blurb on the front page is from 12 December, so this meets the ITN definition of stale. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stefan Keil

 * Support article in good shape, worthy of RD. ——  Serial  23:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, short article. KittenKlub (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lucía Hiriart

 * Oppose for now her Spanish article can be used to improve the content and add the missing sources to her English page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'Early life and education' section is still unsourced. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Also, half of the current coverage is on "Legal accusations". Please add other things about her to her wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bogalay Tint Aung

 * Support historically important person in Myanmar and recipient of the highest national honours and awards. Taung Tan (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit short with only 1622 characters (287 words) of readable prose, but ok. There are enough footnotes at expected spots. AGF on all non-English sources. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Henry Orenstein

 * Lot of the citations are primary or iffy. However, the Newsweek ref could be used to reference a lot of that material.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of work needed on referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still 8 {cn} tags in this wikiarticle. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Thwaites glacier has been destabilized

 * Oppose -- although it is interesting news, this does not rise to blurb-worthy significance, particularly since this has been occurring over a long period of time. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as has been stated before, ITN is really not a good place for forecasts/predictions/scientific-based speculation on future impact of climate change. If there was some actual significant event that could be documented (we posted when the Larson ice shelf broke off in 2017 In the news/Candidates/July 2017) that would be news, but even if it is well-backed by science, hand-waving claims like this are not good ITN stories. --M asem (t) 05:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination, but this is not the right place for speculation. If it happens and if there's a big impact of it, then that would be ITN-worthy. But we don't post scientific predictions/speculation here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous votes. Not seen in main RS news Thursday. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Fayez Tarawneh

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Sadly, no Middle East experts have led a hand, and you need Arabic sources for the finer details. Short, well referenced article. KittenKlub (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article essentially a resume in prose format.  Spencer T• C 15:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: bell hooks

 * Support Article has a few more citations needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support: came here to see if she was up on RD yet. Immediate international coverage (Guardian, BBC, ABC, won't list them all), hugely influential figure. Article is plenty good enough (despite the tags). — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Important and influential thinker. Article looks fine, some of the citations could do with formatting improvements. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support- A major figure in Black feminism. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Right up there with Angela Davis and Octavia Butler.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if all of the stars in the universe strongly supported, this won't be posted with two orange tags. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as notability is unquestioned; issues with OR do need to be resolved, it appears those are being worked on. Once that situation is cleared this should be posted. Radagast (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on quality, as major issues appear to have been addressed. Obviously a hugely important figure, but per the instructions above that's not the focus here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There a still a couple of cn tags to be dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are few issues that needs to be addressed before posting. The article has, as far as can see, two cn tags and one bsn tag. People here seems to forget that RDs are posted based on article quality only.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New prime minister of Tonga

 * Support Both article are in good shape and well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. Although I wouldn't link the election article if it wasn't to mention in the blurb something along the lines of "after winning the election". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support with just Siaosi Sovaleni article bolded. That article is just about long enough for front page (would be good to add any more information about him if more info exists). Bolding the 2021 Tongan general election implies that that election caused him to take office, which isn't the case, as he was elected by the Legislative Assembly of Tonga afterwards. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't prime ministerial/premiership elections indirect elections? How was the new German chancellor phrased (w/o the Merkel part)? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tonga has a formal process for electing its PM, with a parliamentary vote after each election or whenever the office is vacant. Its not a Westminster system, parties are weak (and not even legally recognised in the election process), and the structure of the Legislative Assembly (17 PRs, 9 nobles) makes the process highly uncertain.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this is technically ITN/R due to the wording of the instructions but not in keeping with the spirit of it. The 2021 Tongan general election was the thing to post, the legislature carrying out the formal act of "electing" Sovaleni was a foregone conclusion. We didn't post or even nominate that election, but this feels like a loophole. The election should stay in the blurb, should be bold, and should be held to a high quality standard as the election was the trigger for the change. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, it wasn't a foregone conclusion, because most of the deputies are independent. Even the two candidates for prime minister (Sovaleni and Eke) are not affiliated to any party.KittenKlub (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article covers the coalition building in detail. Joofjoof (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those "independents" all rage quit the Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands it was essentially a third party calling itself "independent" of which Sovaleni is the leader. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this article might show how uncertain it was (I was actually surprised that the nobles didn't do their usual and unite behind the minority candidate). As for most of the independents being former PTOA, that's due to the history of their extremely recent democracy, and its worth noting that most were elected against PTOA (and PTOA factional) candidates.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we didn't post the election, and since there was no "major party" win, it seems unusual enough to stand on it's own as an ITN nom but it still feels like a loophole ITNR. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Due respect, but I don't see this as a technicality at all. The language is "Changes in the holder of the office...except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." Even if we had posted the election, we could not have posted the change in the holder of the office. This specific issue was adjudicated previously. Because coalition governments are usually headed by the election winner, we don't need to post twice (see Ireland in 2020). But if a different person emerges, it's very much noteworthy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Wilkinson (architect)

 * Posted Stephen 03:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jethro

 * Support Article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don’t see any major problems. Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Small article, but well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Metro is not a reliable source. Is the regional source in the article good enough? — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just threw in a few {cn} tags. More refs are needed, please. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All now sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ken Kragen

 * More refs, please. There are a few {cn} tags in the "Later life" section. --PFHLai (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Sourcing issues persist. --PFHLai (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Riccardo Ehrman

 * Support Notable journalist who (accidentally) helped kickstart the Revolutions of 1989 that began with East Germany. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Cap-Haïtien fuel tanker explosion

 * Oppose Article is a 3-sentence stub. Needs a lot of expansion before it is appropriate for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A major disaster. The article will rapidly be expanded. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until article is more developed. Will definitely support then. Kellis7 (Kellis7) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I doubt there is any editor that would oppose on significance or support on quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support While the article remains short, it tells a complete story with good referencing. We can wait for further development, but I see no obligation to do so.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Terrible tragedy. The article seems to be in decent shape. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article has expanded. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment ITN actually loves bus plunge stories: Chiapas truck crash; 2021 Bulgaria bus crash; Sokoto bus massacre; Freetown fuel tanker explosion... See also: If it bleeds, it leads. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Literally the opposite of that. Gotta love how everyone who brings up "bus plunge" never takes the time to understand what it actually means.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP on Wednesday puts toll at 75. Sca (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abraham Lunggana

 * Support Article is sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Blackberri

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. I'm mildly concerned about the copyright status of the photo in the infobox, though. Really cc-by-4.0? --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a bunch more pix today, if anyone wants to swap out the one in the infobox feel free. Funcrunch (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles R. Morris

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jimmy Rave

 * Oppose there are lines and paragraphs without any source. Once they are fixed, the article will be ready to be included in the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite a few citations are missing. Please add more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Verónica Forqué

 * Comment A very sad death. I was also planning to nominate her. Her wikibio is not bad but I think that, being an actress of the level she is, she could have a more in-depth coverage of her career and life, and the lists mentioned are incomplete. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97, agree about fleshing out—I’ve been adding some reviews but the archival sources I have access to are mostly in English so especially if you have more in Spanish, that would be very welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Her article now looks good enough. Nice work! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Miss Universe 2021

 * Tentative oppose, I'm not sure when was the last time we posted a beauty pageant winner. I will not go into the "Miss Universe? But all competitors were humans from Earth?" thing here :P The photo is likely a copyvio. --Tone 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The pic has been tagged for speedy at WCommons. I'm removing it from ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should go down a storm with WP:WikiProject Women in Red. Do we generally post Mr. Universe? How about Non-binary Universe Person? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To take your question about the other Universe competitions at face value, I don't think we generally post any of them (or ITN/R would be involved...), but to ask that is to imply that all events run by the same company are equally newsworthy and otherwise notable. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr. Universe is actually run by NABBA. Not sure about the other one. Probably yet to be staged. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I am actually going to support this one this year. It is the 70th anniversary, article is fully sourced. Miss Universe is a major beauty pageant with at least a billion viewers all over the world. BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the organizers (who have incentive to inflate unverifiable viewership numbers) predicted the cast would "reach" (clever word choice there) 600 million.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it hasn't reached me yet. So please take at least one off your total. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mom, he said you earn 1 billion dollars a year. You only earn 700 million a year.. oh poor me.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. My fave is the swimsuit competition.... like the lovely Miss Montana in 1973's Miss America: "subject prepared for a total brainwash"... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why aren't the spectators wearing bikinis? Should de rigueur. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting subjective beauty pageants. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I assume that the Academy Awards also are subjective. And should not be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes the pageant organizers an authority on beauty, and what impact does the pageant have on society? Would you nominate my 331dot's Beauty Pageant? Movies and beauty are two completely different animals, as is The Academy and the organizers of this event. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Schwing! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose Not notable, nor is this more unique than Miss World or the other pagents. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If ever a media event needs a pretty picture, it's this one, and I'd say the same for any new Mr. Universe if he ever came up. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support I don't like beauty pageants, but I understand that the Miss Universe contest is a pretty big deal around the world. Article is fine on quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not important enough for ITN. Also bolded article has copyvio photo and is barely long enough, focuses mainly on 2 competitions only, so article quality is not there either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 331, Joseph. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the universal dislike of beauty pagaents nowadays due to its objectification of women, I don't think we should post these. --M asem (t) 13:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Objets de femmes? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "The sexual objectification of women involves them being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person". Not just in France, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Conviction of Inger Støjberg

 * Tentative support, impeachment of a cabinet minister and prison sentence is a big story, though the impeachment article should be instead integrated into the main one, it is not long enough to merit being a stand-alone. --Tone 16:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine we would post a US cabinet secretary getting a hand slap like this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentenced to prison? I think we would. --Tone 18:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it would be a serious matter for a cabinet official in the US to see the inside of a cell. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose many governments have members imprisoned, not seeing why this is ITN-worthy. And also, her article is woefully undersourced, and has a massive focus on controversies (in violation of WP:Controversy sections. The impeachment article is a stub. So no appropriate article has anything near an appropriate article quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which other governments have cabinet officials/ministers in prison as a result of conduct related to their job? 331dot (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits, though news coverage seems limited. A cabinet official seeing the inside of a jail cell due to conduct related to their position is rare. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits per 331dot, but I don't think coverage is "limited". I'm seeing it stateside in Bloomberg, plus there's European Politico, South China Morning Post, PerthNow, The Guardian, Spiege, and more. However, her article has an orange tag and the impeachment article is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has too many CN tags; the majority of the "Political Career" section is unreferenced, for example. Fix that before this can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would understand the supports if she were a former prime minister or former president, but not if she is a former minister. There are many countries, for example Spain, that have had ministers imprisoned for crimes committed during their tenure and I would not think of nominating them. We would be setting a reckless precedent. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which Spanish ministers are in prison due to conduct related to their job? I would have supported that too. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per both Alsoriano97 and Joseph2302. Also the sentence is very light.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is light compared to the general population, but rare for high government officials. If Donald Trump sees the inside of a cell for only 24 hours, it would be big news.331dot (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you need to compare the president of the United States to a low-ranking minister in Denmark, you are not making the point that you think you are.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing the former President to anything, just noting it is rare for high government officials to see prison. If it makes you feel better, use Wilbur Ross. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's still the wrong form of government. This is like Birthe Rønn Hornbech getting pinched for the Palestinian sagsbehandling. Or Rikke Hvilshøj's car catching fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're comprehending how short a sentence this is. The punishment for simple assault is up to 6 months. I know someone who received several years for signing for his roommate's parcel delivery. I have no doubt Ross committed many crimes during his time in office. While I would be suprised if he faced prosecution for any of them, I would certainly see a two-month sentence as a miscarriage of justice. Aside, it is extremely bad form to criticise every !vote on a nom you disagree with.    GreatCaesarsGhost   16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose 'Former minister' faces a grand total of 60 days in prison. This is clearly not going through. Gotitbro (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , jailed for actions that she conducted in office. As though her resignation is why this isn't ITN? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb should be altered in that case. Still, can't see a case for a ministerial impeachment being notable enough for ITN in Denmark or otherwise [doesn't appear to be an above the fold news internationally as well, even Euro News somewhat buries it]. Heads of state/government would have been different (which is ITNR, I believe). Gotitbro (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Though, I would like to add, the reason for her impeachment is interesting and important enough (related to the current immigration crisis) and I would perhaps support if presented in the blurb as such. But the article is no shape to be on the main page: half uncited, half is of controversies with an unneeded fork on impeachment to boot. Gotitbro (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose My opinion is that if "government ministers who were imprisoned due to actions in office" are a thing then this ITN would be brimming with social ministers. Basically with the exception of one cabinet, every social minister in the last cabinet is now serving time in prison. Last time our social minister was technically "almost sentenced to death". So, yeah, this isn't a thing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Jeromi, Alsoriano. Lacks general significance; scant reader interest. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how you judged reader interest for the English speaking world, and where that is found in WP:ITN as a criteria. It does state "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." 331dot (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I quickscanned my (secure) personal memory/factoid database, which comprises more than 500 million items. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

New Prime Minister of Bulgaria

 * Oppose on quality surely there's more that can be said about him other than the last 3 months? Also, article is in violation of WP:Controversy sections- this should be covered in a general paragraph. Also, infobox implies he gave up Canadian citizenship, but this isn't in article anywhere? Also, the parties in the coalition aren't sourced in his article, we shouldn't be blurbing text not found in the bolded article. In principle, support as change of government is ITNR, but the article isn't quite good enough yet IMO. Also added an ALT2, as not sure listing all those party acronyms is helpful in ITN blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above; there's rather large gaps in his biography and I would expect more for a major world leader. Furthermore, WP:PROSELINE is a problem; the article would need to be re-written into a more natural narrative tone.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the proposed image has been nominated for deletion on Commons, though I believe the deletion rationale is incorrect. The copyright status of that photo should be checked by an admin before adding the image on front page here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see the article in bad condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. I had completely forgotten about it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and not ITN/R. We posted the election, this is a formality. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR. Since he is leading a coalition, there was no guarantee he was going to be the PM after the election results were announced. Changes in the principle executive are posted. LL has proposed changing this, which is within their rights to do, but as it is now, ITNR is correct here. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We posted his coalition won most votes. Back then, it was likely he would become the next PM. To merit another post, it would have to be someone else becoming the PM. My opinion. --Tone 14:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Grey Cup

 * Support the event is ITNR, and the article looks good enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on quality I think the blurb should contain some geographic location. Many readers outside of North America may read this and have no idea, at first glance, what it is or where this cup is developed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb which mentions the sport (which we should always do), and therefore mentions country too. I don't think the exact score is relevant for the blurb either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Altblurb looks much better. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The Grey Cup article has been featured for the past few years and this game's article is similar in quality. Cmm3 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tradition! – Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted altblurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Is "in overtime" really necessary? I think, as far as a main page blurb goes, that's cruft that doesn't add to the story. It'd be like mentioning that the F1 race was won on the last lap. I don't want to unilaterally change it, but I'm not a fan of that inclusion. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - if mentioning the score is not necessary, then neither is mentioning overtime.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The league is not prominent. Hcoder3104 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The item is listed at WP:ITNR, which means that significance has already been determined. If you object to this inclusion, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news to have it removed from the list.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roland Hemond

 * Support Sufficient coverage and sources.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a few {cn} tags for unreferenced materials. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , all fixed up now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, Muboshgu! --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) MLS Cup 2021

 * Oppose Don't we already have a multitude of soccer related entries on ITNR, clearly not as prominent as them. Gotitbro (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITNR and not a prominent soccer league. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I thought MLS stood for Multiple Listing Service. – Sca (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because Americans decided to call it major, like how they call the winner of most of their sports a "world champion". Their choice of nonsense naming sytem doesn't make this an important league. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair even if the US had the best team in the world you would never let them play in your major leagues cause they're all in the British or B+1 time zone but if a handegg, Yank netball, Yankee cricket or ice hockey player is better than like one guy in one of our 4 major leagues they almost invariably become a player thus making the 4 leagues noticeably stronger than any other league of that sport in the world. So the winners are world champions even though London can never play (unless an eccentric billionaire manages to move one of the shit teams there, like the Pittsburgh Pirates) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What does CONCACAF stand for? Cón caffeíne but with a stutter? If New York City Football Club beats the 2022 CONCACAF Champions League (which has Liga MX® clubs) then a soccer team from the NY area would enter the Club World Cup for the first time! (like the world cup but not for countries) They play in Yankee Stadium! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The final was attended by just 25,000 spectators, this isn't a major league like the Premier League, Spanish La Liga or German Bundesliga. Any other football league with those comparatively low attendences wouldn't even be considered here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we know soccer is not a big 4 sport here, you don't have to rub it in. Liga MX almost always wins the continent and is usually defeated by the CONMEBOL team if they meet who then usually lose to UEFA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we know soccer is not a big 4 sport here, you don't have to rub it in. Wasn't trying to, but your other point that Liga MX is much better highlights my point: we wouldn't post that league, and so we shouldn't post the less important US league. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the final's low attendance is due to the venue's constraints. The 2018 and 2019 finals both got upwards of 69,000 spectators (both sellouts of American football venues).  Sounder Bruce  07:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not one of the world's major football (soccer) leagues, so not important enough for ITN. Posting this would be a WP:BIAS, as we wouldn't consider posting a comparably unimportant football league outside the US. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting the results of a European competition would be enforcing systematic bias, while posting from a developing market within the sport would not, no?  Sounder Bruce  07:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a bias, as those are the biggest leagues in the world, which is why they are posted (not because they're European, but because they're the biggest). The US league is maybe "upcoming", but it's nowhere near as important as those leagues. And other similar standard leagues in non-US countries wouldn't even be considered here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leaving aside the world, I don't think this is a particularly important league in the US, at least not yet. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Biggest league in the US and scaling up. We've blurbed less - some I thought only existed as intramural sports. CoatCheck (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article seems to be in good shape and I do not see an issue in adding another league to the list of leagues / tournaments that we report. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we general post premier events in sport. The number of football competitions we post is already a little out of hand, but there's some ambiguity as to which competitions are top. There is no question this is far down the table.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which table? Looks like another national-level football competition just blurbed in hours flat, minimal discussion and nearly identical attendance. CoatCheck (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Grey Cup is a different sport (Canadian football), and is ITNR, as it's the most important league in that sport. Whereas the MLS is association football/soccer, and isn't the most important competition in that sport. Trying to equate the two seems disingenuous to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Past consensus on ITN is to treat MLS differently than the other major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada. While MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and CFL could be considered the top league in the world in their respective sport, the same could not be said of MLS. MLS is just one of scores of similar leagues around the world. And MLS has a harder time attracting players around the globe, partially due to the fact that their spring-to-fall schedule results in scheduling conflicts with the FIFA calendar and with summertime international tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup. Just look at List of professional sports leagues by revenue, sort the Sport column, and see how many other association football leagues MLS has to compete with for a worldwide audience. Whereas the other five major professional sports leagues in the U.S. and Canada are at the top of revenues in their respective sport. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Vicente Fernández
Support Blurb I added a potential blurb, as Fernandez was one of Mexico's (as well as the Latin-American world's) most notable and beloved musicians, sold over 50 million records, and even has a Hollywood Walk of Fame star. This is similar to how Diego Maradona was one of the world's most famous soccer players. The article is well sourced and is in great shape, though is still being cleaned up a bit to add a bit more unanimity for posting. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose blurb. The referencing has much improved. There is one part left, however I don't think that it is really necessary to be included, so cutting that paragraph is fine as well IMO. Article is in good shape.KittenKlub (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, at least, no opinion on blurb, big star. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment I'm still working on the article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Highly influential singer not only in Mexico but in Spanish-speaking countries and the US. He’s probably Elvis-level influential in Mexico. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, no comment on blurb. Massively influential, but not sure if worthy of a blurb.The Kip (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD article is clearly good enough for RD. Neutral/no specific objections to blurb if there's consensus from others to do so (I don't feel qualified to judge the importance of him to Latin American music, which I have no knowledge on). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Should this be blurbed? There’s only one oppose vote that isn’t further elaborated on, and there’s concrete reasons given for support, with no further objections from those who are neutral to a blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I perceive "Support RD" to be opposing a blurb. More discussion can determine if there is a consensus for a blurb or not. I don't see enough support for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough on the discussion portion, I agree. However, only one of them explicitly stated “oppose blurb”. The rest that didn’t explicitly support said an array of things such “no opinion, big star” “no comment, not sure, but indeed massively influential” and “neutral/no objections”. To me, rather than opposition, that sounds like a swing vote to me. If more supports come about, they become tantamount to supports. If more opposition comes about, they become tantamount to opposes. But I agree, more discussion is needed. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not one of those rare occasions where a blurb for a recent death is justified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Known even outside the world of Mexican music. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral blurb The arguments in favor of blurbing him seem valid, but I don't know enough about Mexican or Latin-American music in general to judge Fernandez's overall fame relative to the rest of the field, let alone all of popular music as a whole. Therefore it seems impossible for me to have any sort of informed opinion one way or another as to whether he is blurbworthy. --WaltCip- (talk)  21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb -- I checked the BBC, CNN, and Reuters; none have any news articles on their frontpages about it. It doesn't rise to the level worthy of a blurb -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies Photo RD is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The lack of votes here is telling. Most RD blurb noms get lots of attention- Colin Powell garnered dozens of !votes but was not blurbed. I would guess you're not seeing as many voices here because most editors have never heard of him. You could say that's a good reason to stay out, but I think it's a good reason to vote no.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Formula One season, Max Verstappen

 * Support - all bolded articles are good quality. Just need a source added to the Verstappen article in the Racing record section. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - Verstappen has been summoned to race control. Wait for that to resolve before moving forward. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is updated and added ALT2. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. While formally correct, many people will associate "stock car" with a different type of car than a F1-car. Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've reverted the IP's vandalism. We are here to report on what has happened, whether or not we agree with what has happened and our favoured driver has won or lost. IP has been given a 24-hr PBLOCK. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until section tag on Max Verstappen complaining of unsourced content on a BLP is resolved. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not completely unsourced, so I've change the tag. Agree it needs addressing though. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose bolding of Max Verstappen, but support running the story with just the 2021 Formula One season article bolded. Unless there is some exceptional story relating to the individual, we typically do not bold them. See for example the Magnus Carlsen story currently on the main page, in which he is not bolded. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: There is currently an orange tag on the relevant section of the 2021 Formula One World Championship, and no prose yet on the race today, so obviously that needs fixing too before going live. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First ever Dutch World Champion is exceptional, is it not? Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so. When Portugal won their first Euro title in 2016, we didn't bold them. When Magnus Carlsen became the first Norwegian to win the chess title in 2013, we didn't bold him. I see no precedent that would support a bolding. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * as champion, Verstappen is the ITNR article. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. WP:ITN/R says it's the "Formula One championship" that is ITN/R, not the champion. There is no other sport where we'd do this, with the only exception I can think of being Emma Raducanu in the US Open, but that was because her achievement was genuinely groundbreaking and unique. Being the first Dutchman to win doesn't count as groundbreaking. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A better way to put it: the championship article needs to be bolded, but if the actual winner article is in good shape or close to good shape, it would be smart to bold it as well; that's bonus points, but not required. The championship article does absolutely need to be at quality and ready as the bolded article, though --M asem (t) 19:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. Ordinarily, I would support it going straight on the main page, but with the controversial circumstances surrounding the safety car restart, I'd prefer to wait until the result of the season is made official and it's clear Mercedes aren't going to descend on Lausanne with a battering ram and a team of expensive lawyers. Sceptre (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence such a thing is likely? Reliable sources are reporting that Verstappen won the title, so I don't think it's our place to be questioning that... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was watching the race live; Toto Wolff was incredibly angry at the FIA before the chequered flag fell. Both Mercedes and Red Bull have been very litigious before the stewards all season, and Ted Kravitz was even saying on the World Feed that the restart was irregular. I'd wait until tomorrow to see what Mercedes does, because I can't not see this championship being decided in court. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OR alert, but from the way that Michael Masi responded to Toto Wolff's concerns during the race, it's probably unlikely that any appeals by Mercedes would bear any fruit. Then again, as you say, it's not our place to speculate and the fact that the race ended controversially should not affect the fact that the F1 currently officially recognise Verstappen as the WDC. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mercedes have protested the result. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Mercedes protest includes a protest to the circumstances of the restart, which is the massive issue (with my racing fan hat on, I'm pretty sure the protest at Max overtaking under SC is a shot across the bow – Wolff saying "if you give Max a penalty, we won't take the restart to CAS"). The BBC Sport live feed has a lot of rumination over whether the safety car restart was regular or not, the answer of which will end up deciding the championship. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to the blurb but being described as champion on the Formula 1 website has no "official" standing. Officially the championship is only awarded at the FIA Prize Giving Ceremony. 3142 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 now the stewards have made their decision at the circuit; given Mercedes have announced their attention to appeal to the ICA, Max is only provisionally the WDC until probably Thursday at the earliest. If the result gets overturned (either by ICA or CAS), then I think it would warrant another ITN entry. Sceptre (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is fine. RS report the result, not Wikipedians' place to question it; if Mercedes want to file lawsuits they can, not relevant to the posting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the article quality is not fine. There is an orange tag in the "Closing rounds" section, and the same section does not yet include a write-up of the Grand Prix that took place today. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait. Appeal by Mercedes appears to be likely given that there are claims by prominent members of F1 community that FIA failed to adjudicate the race fairly. So, let's wait until RSs say that there won't be an appeal, and if there is one, let's amend the blurb to include the contested nature of the the victory.  Mel ma nn   15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Appeal appears to have been lodged.  Mel ma nn   16:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait We should know the result of this appeal fairly soon. Gopchunk (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support And know we know the result. Yes, there may yet be a further appeal but that's a longer process and at some point we have to report on things as they are now. Gopchunk (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The appeal could take weeks, if not months. According to the BBC, "Mercedes took a barrister with them".  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for "weeks, if not months"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it now in real time, there's actual discussions between the race organizers, MErcades, and Red Bull right now as I type this, so we should reasonably expect a final-ish decision today. There could still be a more formal appeal that will take time, but this current actions should be resolved before posting. --M asem (t) 17:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not as if it's like the US election!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's "no" then. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Mercedes have brought in a barrister to the stewards' room, which indicates they are lawyering up. Scuttlebutt in the paddock is also that they're preparing to go all the way to CAS. Sceptre (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - Sources need to be added to some parts of the article. I think we should at least wait until whatever is going on with the stewards is resolved before posting as well. I don't currently feel confident that we wont suddenly have to change what the main page says. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- Mercedes' protest has been denied. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - As other have already said, the appeal was rejected. According to the article, Mercedes can take this further in the coming days, but it can take long for a decision to come. For now, we should show the winner, also per article: "Mercedes took legal counsel into the appeal, but the stewards dismissed their claim - allowing Verstappen to celebrate his first world title." ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support primary blurb as nom. At least as notable as the chess thing already mentioned.  –DMartin  21:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but Alt blurb 4. Was controversial, whatever the outcome (which now seems to hold). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Max Verstappen has an orange tagged section which needs more sources. Surely it shouldn't be allowed as a bold article in that state? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 New Caledonian independence referendum

 * Comment Haven't two referendums already taken place, were they posted/discussed on ITN? Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Both were. BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't see any reason for this to not go through as well then, Support. Gotitbro (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose it'd only be important enough to post if the vote was in favour of independence. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A US state, or a British country, or a EU country voting against independence would be sufficiently important to post, and so it is for New Caledonia. The result has also been widely covered in the news, particularly in French and Pacific news sources. BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't see the significance of this result if the independence parties boycotted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Significance is that it is the final referendum permitted under the accords; according to France and the loyalists, there will be no more, and according to those who support independence they will engage with the planned post-referendum process where the status of New Caledonia within France is decided. BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this was the final one of the three, meaning New Caledonia is going to remain part of France for at least some time.BastianMAT (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support An independence referendum, recognized by the country holding it, in a G7 country? How often does that happen apart from there? Plus, it's the final one.--Aréat (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this WP:ITN/R? If so, notability is not an issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No clue if referendums/(independence referendums) are part of ITN/R. Although I do personally think that this is significant enough. If it is part of ITN/R, we can update that.BastianMAT (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the presidential election of a micronation is ITN/R, then surely any election which could result in the creation of a such a nation should be ITN/R IMO. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 17:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion on the inclusion of recognized independence referendum on here, if you wan't to participate.--Aréat (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable since it was overwhelmingly rejected, and local news relevant only to a subdivision of a country. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the ABC, it is relevant to Australia (the previous title of that article stated "Here is why Australians should care"). I have yet to find sources stating so explicitly for other countries, but it would be reasonable to assume that it is relevant to all of France, as well as to the rest of the regional nations. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, we posted the previous two, and the results are relevant since they mean that New Caledonia will remain part of France, with geopolitical implications. Also, independence referenda are rare and we should not post only results that are pro-independence. A possible analogy, we would still have posted the result of the Brexit vote if people had decided to stay with the EU. --Tone 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support same importance as the previous two, arguably more as it's controversial, and might be the last referendum they have on it. Article is of sufficient quality, and is NPOV despite it being a very politically charged vote. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good quality, story is a major news story. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No more tags, fixed it in a few minutes as the few sentences were easily verifable. BastianMAT (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) UFC 269

 * Oppose don't see this as important enough for ITN. Also, article lacks any prose about the event itself- it has only a results table. And a less important issue- the article also fails to convert imperial measures to their metric equivalents (which is a MOS violation). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded these concerns to the talk page, and am 50% confident they'll be dealt with swiftly! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there's not been any improvements yet (apart from me adding conversions for the weights of people, which was the least important of my complaints). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Better than nothing getting done, thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as with boxing, the lack of a structure to any type of championship makes it hard to see any fight as being ITN-worthy. --M asem (t) 00:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That just makes them hard to place at ITN/R, I thought. The unexpected result here sets it apart from the ones which aren't nommed. But I guess appreciating the difference is hard if you haven't been watching the last seven years of ordinary Nunes fights (which is fine). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There needs to be some clarity, perhaps on the ITN talk page, about what sort of MMA fights - if any - are considered notable enough for ITN. Otherwise we fall into the same problem we encounter with boxing, with all of the major fights essentially being considered promotional exercises.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need MMA-specific criteria, we just must decide whether it's newsworthy. As with all sports, the stakes matter, and this women's championship is the most prestigious in MMA. As in political turnover, length of reign matters, and Nunes had ruled since July 2016. She's a transformative figure and still technically top of her field, pound-for-pound, for Thatcher-Mandela points. The new champ was a dark horse, so it has shock and awe the main event (and the rest of the card) hasn't, along with relatively major gambling impacts. The sudden emphatic nature of the comeback and finish beats a five-round decision for oomph, same as violence helps death stories seem bigger. These are the boxes to check. But yes, unfortunately, so is good prose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Submitted For Disapproval Even UFC 232, where the great lioness devoured the fearsome cyborg to claim her weight in golden feathers and attain sapphic sports immortality, doesn't tell a story. Just another dry stat table. What chance does a damned vixen have to "break the wheel" before too long? Fifty-fifty! And that's not good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Rice

 * Support: Article has GA status. Death section might need a little expanding, otherwise it's good to go. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added sources to the bibliography section and all the entries are now sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: The most important author in modern Gothic literature deserves a mention. JanderVK (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are currently 20+ {cn} tags in this wikibio. These issues must be addressed before this nom can proceed. Please add more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per PFHLai. Her notability here is not important. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added citations for several of the new cn tags, so there's currently 16 left. 9 of them are for comics adaptations of her work, so I've reached out to WP:COMICS for advice and help with those. On the other 7, at least one I wonder if we can just outright remove the tagged information itself, because the article already can verify the year of the death of her young daughter in 1972 but the unsourced information is the precise date and location. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That should be all of the cn tags. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Thanks for all the new refs! --PFHLai (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mel Lastman

 * Oppose for now – article looks almost good to me, only thing is the concerns brought up in the "Post-amalgamation Toronto" section and details about his death. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - way too much uncited / citation needed. I'm sure this could be fixed up quickly enough, but I can't get to it myself at the moment. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More refs are still needed. --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manuel Santana

 * Oppose for now some paragraphs and lines without source, two sections without prose and an extension of the coverage of his career would be great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Worked on it, article should be adequate now, being sourced and containing key information even if there is room for more. BastianMAT (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems ready. Nice work! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tables are unreferenced. Rm ready.  Spencer T• C 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added sources to back up the tables (ITF match activity and ATP finals), cheers.BastianMAT (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021

 * Tornado outbreak of December 10%E2%80%9311, 2021 142.117.88.43 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – 50 people likely dead, not actually 50 people dead (LEX18) however this is the first quad-state tornado in US history and has caused serious devastation. I suggest waiting till morning for better assessment of its impacts.--Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 09:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a significant number of victims is confirmed, if any. This is also not the proper way to make a nomination here. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb The number of victims is shocking and notorious and the article is near good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - BBC now reporting the same speculation with "more like 70 to 80" being cited by a local lawman. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At least half a dozen other people are confirmed to have died outside of (the) Mayfield (tornado), death tolls which are also expected to rise. We haven’t had a major outbreak like this in several years. 142.117.88.43 (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * source? The blurbs you propose are wrong. As stated above, 50 people have not yet been confirmed dead and I don't know how much six fatalities is blurb-worthy in a region/country usually affected by tornadoes. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. About 100 people have likely been killed. This is one of the largest tornado outbreaks ever, and that also in the meteorological winter which makes it even more unusual. Count Iblis (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation of deaths. The Guardian ref repeatedly says feared dead. Though the death toll is likely to be in the high double figures, we shouldn't post until we know the death toll is high. Jim Michael (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per Jim Michael. RS estimates of (expected) fatalities range from 50 to 100, and the AP doesn't seem to have filed a separate story yet. The Lexington, Ky., paper paraphrases governor saying "at least 50 people and possibly as many as 70 to 100" died. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Conditional Support Major weather related disaster with substantial loss of life. Multiple RS sources are reporting scores of fatalities. That's enough. An exact death count is not needed, and we can always update the blurb as more information becomes available. Article quality is adequate, and it's being updated . Needs some additional sourcing in the meteorological section. But should be good to go then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of the above, the "Meteorological analysis" section is unsourced. --M asem (t) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – The wide range of RS fatality estimates is precisely why we should wait in this instance. It seems that people – even Ky. Gov. Andy Beshear – are just making guesstimates. Too indefinite for ITN at this pt., IMO, but definitely blurbworthy eventually. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: – The existing article seems too general and diffuse. A rewrite leading with the Kentucky fatalities (the main news) would be best. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – AP just filed a 3-graf 'top' to its general story, but it doesn't add much. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A 'writethru' (complete) story filed around 16:00, but toll still unknown. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support BBC just confirmed minimum of 70 dead. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A lot of deaths for a tornado if confirmed, especially for winter (tornado season is spring (probably cause there's more sun energy in the system than autumn), autumn is secondary season, most winter tornados are further southeast as tornadoes need a cold front to touch warm and humid air but the US has been having insain warm snaps like a litany). The Tri-State Tornado (which meteos also doubt was a single tornado) was 97 years ago, last night's confirmed length of 150 miles and 2.83 hours without leaving the ground (vs 219 and 3.5 hours for the "record") is extreme (longstanding convention in meteorology is a tornado touches the surface by definition and "dies forever" if the vortex breaks contact even for a moment). The quad-state "line"/tri-state single tornado is roughly 100/75 miles long respectively and the 150 mile long one goes from barely inside the last state to far outside frame almost leaving the southern states entirely and almost becoming Quint-States I guess, that seems to beat 219 miles and 3.5 hours for "longest almost-single tornado" (blue must mean "rather strong" then) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article still needs sourcing before we can post. I agree this is an unusual death toll for a torando outbreak at any time of the year (much less N.Hemisphere winter) but we can't post a substandard article. --M asem (t) 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. It looks bad with all those citations needed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Widespread devastation, as mentioned by others, it's unusual for a tornado outbreak to be this bad, especially in the winter. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, pending article cleanup. Latest AP update paraphrases Gov. Beshear re a probable toll of "at least 70." – Sca (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, however note that 20 have been confirmed dead so far (70 estimated). Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 19:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. But they may have known approx. how people were in the candle factory in Mayfield. Our Mayfield article says the factory's roof collapse "killed dozens of workers who were inside." (Somewhere else in the shuffle I saw a statement that 110 were inside.) – Sca (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed altblurb 2. The National Weather Service has not confirmed that it was one tornado that traveled over 250 miles across four states. NWS reports may take a few days to verify or refute this claim. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 19:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Reuters now says 70 dead. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unusually high death toll for a single tornado. I agree to hold off on any mention of path length, since this may have been a tornado family and the number of tornadoes is unknown. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support – This is one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in modern times, and the "Quad-State Tornado" was also record-breaking (either as a tornado or a tornado family). The tornado outbreak did an extensive amount of damage as well. Media coverage is widespread. The article appears to be in good shape now. This definitely needs to be posted.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Suport History-making tornado outbreak with large human losses. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Suport Very unusual December tornado cutting through 200+ miles. Death toll likely to pass Kentucky's 1890 record. CoatCheck (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- can the blurb be posted by an admin at this point? Certainly seems more than good enough. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It's not journalism, but it looks presentable. Marked Ready. I wouldn't try to use the QuadStateTorMRMS graphic in our small ITN box, though - too complex. – Sca (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At least the cn and fv tags should be fixed first.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb Blurbs about natural disasters never include a subdivision's name without including the country in which the event took place. Alternatively, instead of using the alt-blurb, the main blurb could be edited to include "Kentucky, United States". 58.167.153.179 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Kentucky, United States" sounds odd. I changed the blurb so it reads "the US state of Kentucky", which I think reads better. Feel free to undo that if you disagree, though. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment The tornado outbreak affected four states, not just Kentucky with at least 70 deaths, I suggest a change to: A major quad-state tornado outbreak in the Midwestern United States has killed at least 70 people. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 11:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But toll estimates Sunday for the larger area range from at least 83 to more than 100, and thus remain indefinite. To avoid confusion, it's better for the blurb to concentrate on the main disaster in Kentucky and let the article continue to tell the larger story – which it does high up in the text. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While the exact number is uncertain, what is certain is that the total death toll will be a lot more than 100 "Forty people have been rescued from the collapsed candle factory in Mayfield but 60 more remain missing and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, who has visited the scene, said it was unlikely there were more survivors. He said no-one had been found alive since Saturday. "There's at least 15ft of metal with cars on top of it, barrels of corrosive chemicals that are there. It'll be a miracle if anybody else is found alive in it," he said." Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment Must have been a heck of a chess tournament. CoatCheck (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment—Update 94 deaths have been confirmed, so please update the blurb to say “At least 90”. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Current blurb – A tornado outbreak kills at least 94 people in Kentucky and several neighboring U.S. states – is fine. Only concern is how often the toll might have to be revised. We'll see, maybe 94 is it. – Sca (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- did this really happen before Carlsen defended his championship? Shouldn't this be above that?-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was - Tornado blurb was accurately positioned above chess - until it wasn't. I'm waiting to see if it jumps above the race car blurb too. CoatCheck (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Surprisingly, given previous reports, estimated toll numbers have been revised downward to 50 in Ky. and 64 overall.   (Also posted at WP:MP/E.) – Sca (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On Tues., general RS agreement on 74/±100.   – Sca (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leland Wilkinson

 * There are just a few {cn} tags to address. Almost ready. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a few more cites. Not sure there's a source for his latest wife. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, Engineerchange. I wonder if this is RS. --PFHLai (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed that one. From Googling about DNAinfo, it appears to be a RS. Added, thanks! --Engineerchange (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Günther Rühle

 * Support – A longtime German cultural figure. Copy-edited. Looks adequate. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate sourced, start class article. Grimes2 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Well written and referenced. (and an edit conflict) KittenKlub (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. A brand new article going on MainPage less than six hours after creation?! Nicely done. --PFHLai (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Michael Nesmith

 * Oppose with regret; too much unsourced information. Not just a musician, a seminal one from what was never intended to be one of the greatest 60s groups ever, but amazingly turned out to be just that. Stick on "Circle Sky" from the Head soundtrack. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Ritchie333... Of the Monkees, Nesmith was probably the most musically relevant; a stellar guitarist, singer and songwriter, he had the most impactful career after the Monkees relevance ended... His work as a songwriter ("Different Drum") is stellar, and The First National Band was one of the seminal acts in alt-country ("Joanne"). Still, the article is a trainwreck of inadequate referencing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Let us wait on this one. This article is seeing a lot of editing. Perhaps the sourcing will be fixed soon. Thriley (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support..... as soon as sourcing issues are resolved. Hopefully sooner than later, given Nesmith's significance. TheScrubby (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose correctly orange tagged for lack of sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) World Chess Championship 2021
'''1. d4 (white pawn to d4, a1 is white's lower left square and black's upper right and the squares just go up from there, both queens start on the d-file) Nf6 (kNight to f6, cause capital K means king) 2. Nf3 d5 (the position now looks symmetrical) 3. g3 e6 (and Catalany, but no longer symmetrical) 4. Bg2 Be7 (bishop moves, the capital letters should be easy to figure out) 5. 0-0 (white castles) 0-0 (black castles) 6. b3 c5 7. dxc5 (x in a word of alienese means that whatever was before the x "ate" whatever was on the square after the x) Bxc5 8. c4 dxc4 9. Qc2 Qe7 10. Nbd2 (the knight that went to d2 came from the b-file, the extra letter, number or square disambiguates) Nc6 11. Nxc4 b5 12. Nce5 Nb4 13. Qb2 Bb7 14. a3 Nc6 15. Nd3 Bb6 16. Bg5 Rfd8 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rac1 Nd4 19. Nxd4 Bxd4 20. Qa2 Bxg2 21. Kxg2 Qb7+ (+ means check) 22. Kg1 Qe4 23. Qc2 a5 24. Rfd1 Kg7 25. Rd2 Rac8 26. Qxc8 Rxc8 27. Rxc8 Qd5 28. b4 a4 29. e3 Be5 30. h4 h5 31. Kh2 Bb2 32. Rc5 Qd6 33. Rd1 Bxa3 34. Rxb5 Qd7 35. Rc5 e5 36. Rc2 Qd5 37. Rdd2 Qb3 38. Ra2 e4 39. Nc5 Qxb4 40. Nxe4 Qb3 41. Rac2 Bf8 42. Nc5 Qb5 43. Nd3 a3 44. Nf4 Qa5 45. Ra2 Bb4 46. Rd3 Kh6 47. Rd1 Qa4 48. Rda1 Bd6 49. Kg1 Qb3 50. Ne2 Qd3 51. Nd4 Kh7 52. Kh2 Qe4 53. Rxa3 Qxh4+ 54. Kg1 Qe4 55. Ra4 Be5 56. Ne2 Qc2 57. R1a2 Qb3 58. Kg2 Qd5+ 59. f3 Qd1 60. f4 Bc7 61. Kf2 Bb6 62. Ra1 Qb3 63. Re4 Kg7 64. Re8 f5 65. Raa8 Qb4 66. Rac8 Ba5 67. Rc1 Bb6 68. Re5 Qb3 69. Re8 Qd5 70. Rcc8 Qh1 71. Rc1 Qd5 72. Rb1 Ba7 73. Re7 Bc5 74. Re5 Qd3 75. Rb7 Qc2 76. Rb5 Ba7 77. Ra5 Bb6 78. Rab5 Ba7 79. Rxf5 Qd3 80. Rxf7+ Kxf7 81. Rb7+ Kg6 82. Rxa7 Qd5 83. Ra6+ Kh7 84. Ra1 Kg6 85. Nd4 Qb7 86. Ra2 Qh1 87. Ra6+ Kf7 88. Nf3 Qb1 89. Rd6 Kg7 90. Rd5 Qa2+ 91. Rd2 Qb1 92. Re2 Qb6 93. Rc2 Qb1 94. Nd4 Qh1 95. Rc7+ Kf6 96. Rc6+ Kf7 97. Nf3 Qb1 98. Ng5+ Kg7 99. Ne6+ Kf7 100. Nd4 Qh1 101. Rc7+ Kf6 102. Nf3 Qb1 103. Rd7 Qb2+ 104. Rd2 Qb1 105. Ng1 Qb4 106. Rd1 Qb3 107. Rd6+ Kg7 108. Rd4 Qb2+ 109. Ne2 Qb1 110. e4 Qh1 111. Rd7+ Kg8 112. Rd4 Qh2+ 113. Ke3 h4 114. gxh4 Qh3+ 115. Kd2 Qxh4 116. Rd3 Kf8 117. Rf3 Qd8+ 118. Ke3 Qa5 119. Kf2 Qa7+ 120. Re3 Qd7 121. Ng3 Qd2+ 122. Kf3 Qd1+ 123. Re2 Qb3+ 124. Kg2 Qb7 125. Rd2 Qb3 126. Rd5 Ke7 127. Re5+ Kf7 128. Rf5+ Ke8 129. e5 Qa2+ 130. Kh3 (diagram) Qe6 131. Kh4 Qh6+ 132. Nh5 Qh7 133. e6 Qg6 134. Rf7 Kd8 135. f5 Qg1 136. Ng7 1–0 (white won this giving Carlsen 1 point of the 7 and a half he got by the end of the championship, there is no checkmate symbol (# or ++) on the Ng7 (as is expected for this level) which tells you that black almost certainly resigned when he thought he had no chance to even draw for a half-point anymore)''' And !!, !, !?, ?!, ? and ?? give the right idea, even if you don't know that say ?! means dubious but not quite a blunder, capitals after a pawn moving to the end obviously mean promotion and ep or e.p. mean en passant. That's pretty much it. Sometimes ++ means double check but I usually just see a single + no matter how many things are checking at once. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The section for game 11 at the bottom of the article needs a source. Otherwise, this looks like a well written and decently referenced article. It would also be good to get some coverage for something outside of the usual sporting activities we tend to cover. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support The article needs a small expansion of Game 11 prose and a proper source for that section, but it looks good otherwise. Please do that before posting this.  Also, the event should be bolded in the blurb instead of the winner.  That is our standard practice.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is this in a mainstream news outlet? 331dot (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources to the nom. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the summaries are way too technical, listing every move in a format not known to the average reader. As a result, I learned very little from reading those game summaries. And some of the matches need some sources too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as noted, the Game 11 summary isn't ready yet. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is...an interesting one. It's well-written, but far too technical with the game sections. Perhaps a rewrite is needed to turn this into a more readable format. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment WRT the article being "too technical", this is how articles on chess games are written (these are two articles previously on ITN, but there are plenty more examples). If someone can't read chess notation that's unfortunate but there's not much to be done. Articles on football matches don't explain every positional abbreviation, they just list them and move on. BSMRD (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the summaries are short but give the gist of each match well, and accurately highlight what made each game a win or draw. There's not much more to wish for than that. Integral Python click here to argue with me 21:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, would like them all to have sources (at least three of the match summaries have no/inadequate sources). And the technical play-by-play thing of every move is confusing to a casual reader, and more of that should be explained in English (rather than chess notation). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It may improve soon but slow sourced prose adding is probably because 1. a good summary can only be written by a skilled human but the 32 pieces of wood and 64 squares have internal proximity sensors that post the moves to free websites immediately. 2. The alienese takes far less time and autisticness to learn than say Python (easy my ass) or even high school math so there's not a lot of chess fans who don't understand it. Unless you can practically play blindfolded you're supposed to keep track of the game on a physical chess set or click the forward button or what move you want on a website but otherwise it's easy. There are many openings but you don't need to know their names to read the alienese. I'll translate the header of the long game® and teach alienese below. It's 136 moves from each side which is the longest in the 136-year history of the championship and much longer than average.
 * Queen's Pawn Game (the pawn in front of the queen goes first, but not 1 step, as that is rare and weird), Symmetrical Variation (queen's pawn games aren't symmetrical as often when the players are strong), Pseudo-Catalan (like the opening named after Catalonia (Barcelona's area) but not a proper Catalan Opening) (ECO D02 (this game is classified as chapter 02 (out of 100) of book D of the definitive Encyclopedia of Chess Openings: five physical books of alienese that world champions try to memorize))


 * Comment The Game 11 summary needs to be sourced. Also some reaction to the conclusion of the match should be included. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in excellent shape and can be posted now. As for the algebraic notation, please note that the "Results" section is properly labelled with (if you're not familiar with any symbol, please consult this page). It's impossible to convert the game summaries into a more readable format without algebraic notation in the same way as it's impossible to explain results in mathematics or physics without mathematical notation. This has never been a problem both for chess and scientific articles posted to ITNR, so there's really no reason to argue that something should be changed when it's not possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for an ITNR to me. Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks in good shape for posting in its current form. Nsk92 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oded Muhammad Danial

 * Support A notable person and his death was sudden, and also appeared everywhere around the national media. The article could have a bit more expansion but otherwise good for RD. Nyanardsan (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. In the first line, it states that he is notable for being Bandung's mayor. What did he accomplish while in that role? Article has no information at present about his role as mayor after his election.  Spencer T• C 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added some details - a couple sentences, really. Juxlos (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Speedy Duncan

 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Jervis

 * Support, The article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Al Unser (Sr.)

 * Oppose It's a shame that the article about such a legend in the sport is in so piss-poor of a shape. It's a disgrace, really.  It's not like he's that obscure.  Book-length biographies exist about him and his family.  I'm not a motorsports fan in any way, but even I know about Al Unser.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. A household name in his day, though mainly in the U.S. From a famous racing family. (And I'm not a motorsports fan, either.) – Sca (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This wikibio has too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lina Wertmüller

 * This wikibio has a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. The 'Awards and nominations' and 'Filmography' sections need more sources. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) The Game Awards 2021

 * As a comment, I would like to make sure that more mainstream sources cover this to be assured that this was considered important outside of the video game circle (I absolutely know it is within it). But the article I know is sources up to including what we can of the ceremony, so its arguably in the right shape for posting. --M asem (t) 06:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, if we're talking the top award for video games, it is either this or the BAFTA Game Awards (We also have DICE Awards and GDC Awards but they tend to be more from the industry focus side. The Game Awards are from the media's POV, while BAFTA tends to be non-video game critics looking in, hence why those are better, in addition to having more non-VG mainstream coverage) --M asem (t) 06:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Japan Game Awards should be considered along with those. TarkusAB talk / contrib 10:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't get anywhere near the coverage that these two get. --M asem (t) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding non-VG sources that are reporting on it this morning --M asem (t) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously significance is a spectrum not a binary. Our criteria specifically direct that any relative deficiency in significance can be made up for in the quality of the update.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now So far, I couldn't find any mainstream coverage on the event besides Washington Post and USA Today. If more articles appear in the media, I might reconsider. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides Washington Post and USA Today? Besides that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from all main RS sites' general news/features presentations; not prominently in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not covered in many mainstream news/websites (other than the 2 listed). Therefore topic is too niche for ITN, same as how we rejected esports competitions a few months ago as all the sources on it are niche. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sooo...subjectively, as someone who denounces the existence of e-sport (I use games instead), I would follow the folks above me who oppose. But objectively I have to admit a Support. The event is also covered in the RSes of my country Indonesia (Kompas, Tempo, Pikiran Rakyat, etc etc]. I really believe those who oppose should check on the RSes of their respective countries. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have done. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also have done, it's not on the main page of BBC (it's only on the specific Entertainment & Arts section), and not in other sources prominently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement that it be "front page" news, just that it has more widestream coverage than the niche of video games. At least four non-VG sources have covered it now, so that's demonstrating being beyond niche, though I'm still watching for more. --M asem (t) 17:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bold of you to assume that there are reliable sources from my country. Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article, the kind of quality we should be highlighting, and covered by enough RS for me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per, this is covered in non-VG reliable sources, enough for notability. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Totally a niche topic; lacks wider news significance. – Sca (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: – One must question Deadline Hollywood's status as a reliable source – in the ITN sense of the term. – Sca (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Video games are not niche, though I will agree I want to make sure these awards are reasonably covered in major sources just as some of the more niches sporting events like gaelic football. And to question the reliability of a source normally considered reliable to challenge a ITN nom is really not appropriate. RS/N is that way. --M asem (t) 20:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing could be more niche than video games. Considered by whom? Never saw it cited on ITN before.– Sca (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So niche that it's a bigger industry than global movies and US sports combined. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wah-wah! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Video games have zero effect on the world at large, except for those few who make money from them. – Sca (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Who do you suppose gives them all that money? I'll bet banks. Banks are suckers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither do most sports, films, television, and music, but we still post them. --M asem (t) 00:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Video games have zero effect on the world at large Of course! Zero effect!!  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a certified sheesh classic. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. The argument that video games are niche is very old at this point. Not only have they eclipsed the film industry, but they haven't suffered the economic losses that the film industry has from the pandemic. The industry's growth is accelerating, and is and will be a central part of global popular culture. There is a lot of crossover from Hollywood into video games now in response to this growth. Even at face value, the video game industry is certainly less niche than many sports we post. It is also the case that the Game Awards is covered widely in news outlets. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:CC2F:F2F5:4061:1922 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support exactly what said. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Spoken as a non-player, it seems somewhat bizarre to claim that video games are a niche industry. Prominent awards show, covered in many RS. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose Are you for real? An ad show with a small award ceremony strapped on on top is now getting its own ad on the main page of the Wikipedia? Then again, you've posted that porn gif just a few weeks ago so this could really do as a fine final nail in the coffin of that website that used to be good, but that had turned into a fucking parody of itself since the beggining of the open stage of the cultural war in America. By all means, post it, I expect nothing else 5.44.170.26 (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A promotional event dominated by product announcements (i.e. adverts) and with lots of categories so that everyone gets a prize. The voting is done on platforms like Facebook and Twitter and so is not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For the main awards, it has the same number of categories as the Academy Awards (a handful more if you count esports). 90% of the voting is done by a jury of over 100 media outlets worldwide. – Rhain  ☔ 13:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a massive worldwide industry event, covered in plenty of high quality reliable sources and a decent article to boot. Oh the irony of those opposing who continually complain about the staleness of ITN! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support The list of RS covering the event is extensive. Guidelines are hit, this should be posted. To address some concerns raised: The event has repeatedly hit higher viewership than the Oscars, the niche/"small awards show" argument is one that just doesn't make sense - this event is arguably far more notable than some of the awards that are ITN/R. As for how voting works, it's detailed in The Game Awards: "Winners are determined by a blended vote between the voting jury (90%) and public fan voting (10%) via social media." Canadianerk (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I see a consensus to post here. I altered the blurb slightly as I think we don't generally have the year in such postings. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The opposes here absolutely reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coverage in WaPo, USATODAY, and NYT isn't good enough for you? Just admit that you don't like video games instead of pretending that there's some real difference between this and other awards shows. Mlb96 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This nomination was a gamechanger. I think it's the first time a gaming news was posted (besides the GTA5 breaking media sales records). 2A02:2F0E:DB02:5E00:4114:4253:8AB6:37CC (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – I call for three minutes of Wikiwide silence. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Chiapas truck crash

 * Support once expanded. Definitely notable enough for a blurb. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality event looks ITN-worthy, but article is a stub. Consider this a support once article quality is fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Toll has risen to 53. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not detailed enough for main page posting. Seven sentences as of my writing this.  That's not good enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have expanded and updated the article. Perhaps someone could add a map to the infobox. Moonswimmer Mooonswimmer 15:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article updated now. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – "... victims are believed to have been Central American migrants from Guatemala." Too iffy. – Sca (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julie Brougham

 * Weak support It's not great, such as long gaps in her biography, but for someone who became famous so late in life, that's at least a little understandable. What is there covers why she is notable, and its all referenced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Demaryius Thomas

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced (career stats needs a ref but should be available from the ESPN stats link in the external links section).  Spencer T• C 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent quality for an article of that length. Meets minimum requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support very good article, everything sourced. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Blackjack Lanza

 * Almost Support Whenever they're ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very weak support a few footnotes are needed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Sokoto bus massacre

 * Oppose Literally zero updates to the target article. What I am assessing the quality of if Wikipedia has no information on the topic?  Where are we directing readers to learn more about the topic?  Let me know when I have something to assess.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from Thursday's RS coverage. Reuters story cited above merely corrects an article from Tuesday. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whilst it doesn't have it's own article & isn't mentioned on the article about the conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't out of the ordinary for northern Nigeria. We generally don't blurb school shootings in the United States because they're relatively common; same principle applies here. Mlb96 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We'd certainly quickly blurb a mass shooting in the US whose death toll were that high. Jim Michael (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose the fact it's not even notable enough for a separate article indicates it's not ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is notable enough for its own article, the problem is that it hasn't been created. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Greg Tate

 * Support Article is short but sufficient and well referenced, death appears to have been first reported December 7; the report date is usually our secondary method of chronologizing deaths if it was not reported immediately. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient, though the proseline treatment of his writings is less than ideal.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Had planned to continue working on the entry and waiting for an official date of death before nominating. Will do my best. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In better shape now. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is referenced and long enough. TJMSmith (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Well it’s no GA, which I regret, but I think it hits most of the high notes now and the date of death was confirmed by NYT. So it’s probably about as ready as I can quickly make it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Bipin Rawat

 * Oppose for now. Several sections lack cites.  That needs fixing before this can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape now.  Agnostic on RD or Blurb, but either way it's good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Jayron32, @GreatCaesarsGhost. Total 13 people died. Should this number 13 be included in the blurb? His Wife and staff were among the dead. NDTV headline says, "General Bipin Rawat, Wife Among 13 Killed In Chopper Crash" Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait handful of CN tags will need to be resolved first.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb while military chopper crashes are unfortunately common, the death of the highest ranking officer is not. Rawat has also played significant roles during his tenure, which makes it all the more notable. 180.151.20.32 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb The death of 13 people in a single accident alone is enough for a blurb, plus the death of the CJCS. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb 13 deaths including the Chief of Defence Staff -- the highest-ranking officer of the Indian Armed Forces. The articles look to be in good shape. – SD0001  (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment proposing blurb – Indian Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat, is killed along with 12 others in a helicopter crash in the state of Tamil Nadu. 2405:201:4013:8162:99FC:DC7C:6496:6DBD (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a blurb box with pic and 2 alternate blurbs proposed till now. Venkat TL (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added another alternate blurb, though this one targets Rawat's article rather than the crash.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - death of 13 people in this accident is enough for a blurb. BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Important general. Plus, article is well sourced. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 with both bolded.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt3. Put the photo in for protection but also figured the Scholz photo could remain a bit. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of swapping in Bipin Rawat's pic when it's daytime in India. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pic swapped. It's now 6 am in India and in the middle of the night in Germany. --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Chancellor of Germany

 * Technically, we already posted the election results, but this may be additionally notable because it means Germany will get a new chancellor after Angela Merkel's 16 years in office. --Tone 10:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Germany has a parliamentary system and the result of the chancellor election was open until this day. "except when that change was already posted as part of a general election" does not apply here. LenaAvrelia (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per LenaAvrelia. In line with other such events (see Austria, which had three chancellors in three months). Article looks to be in a good shape. Regards So  Why  11:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please use this photo instead though? 😅 Regards So  Why  11:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a coalition had to be formed, it was not a guarantee he was going to be Chancellor after the general election, so I think this qualifies for posting. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is BLP and contains many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - as 331dot says, the general election result did not guarantee Scholz would become chancellor - a "Jamaica coalition" of CDU/CSU, Greens and FDP would also have had a solid majority, but Greens and FDP decided to support Scholz (SPD) instead of Laschet (CDU). --141.100.201.16 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to CNs. I concur with this being tagged as ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose about 10 CN tags and an entire section orange tagged as needing more citations. That needs to be fixed if this is to be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support if the citation needed tags get fixed. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing how there are no more citation needed tags, I change my opinion to a big support. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – In French, German, Swedish and Norwegian (Bokmål) versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How does that fact cause citations to appear in the article? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is completely irrelevant as to whether this article should be posted here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Schönen Tag noch ihr Kollegen, und alles gute zur Weinachtszeit. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, those particular Wikipedias have no interest at all in verification or BLPs, they just promote whatever is happening in whatever state to the main page, hardly something for this Wikipedia to care about, let alone be encouraged to mimic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added citations for all the cn tags and removed some uncited material. In my view, the article is now reasonably well sourced for a BLP.  Sandstein   14:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks to be ready now that CN tags have been fixed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I tend to think we should mention Merkel in here somewhere b/c her leadership was long & notable. Anyone have thoughts on this? Btw, I support a blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Merkel, she didn't resign or was defeated, she just didn't run again and now left office as people do who have served. Plus, the blurb is already pretty long and adding Merkel would make it too long imho. Regards So  Why  15:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent enough article, a change of government is already currently on ITN. Llewee (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - proposed altblurb, simpler prose and more worth mentioning Angela Merkel I think. - Indefensible (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That Merkel leaves isn't the news; everybody knew that a year ago. The news is that a new coalition now leads Germany.  Sandstein   17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes but it probably is the most significant thing about this to a typical English-speaking reader. Llewee (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That Merkel officially ceases to be chancellor is in the news. However much it is foreseen. It's like saying that neither is the re-election of certain politicians like Putin or Ortega. And yes, this should be included in the blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted: A coalition government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) is formed in Germany. --PFHLai (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we're freelancing on the blurb now, I've added newly-elected before the word Chancellor, as all prior proposed blurbs and most of this discussion focused on his winning said election, as do many news sources. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. We didn't need tons of detail since this topic (& Merkel) has been so heavily in the news of late. – Sca (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd prefer a blurb that includes Merkel as well. Merkel staying in power for 16 years in a democratic country is very unusual and notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Much though I admire Mutti, I'm Merkeled out. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Lemley

 * Support Article covers major accomplishments, and looks fully cited. Joofjoof (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suresh Jadhav (biotechnology executive)

 * Support - article is referenced. Great job starting this article! TJMSmith (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. This is a brand new wikibio. Good luck at DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Farida Mammadova

 * Support, looks ok, though reception section is too critical. RIP. Brandmeistertalk  09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add refs to the Selected publications section. The Career section could use more footnotes, too. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carol Jenkins Barnett

 * Support Looks good and ready. Ktin (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Burundi prison fire

 * Oppose barely more than a stub. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, seeing how there seems to be more sources, I am changing my vote to weak support. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. Oppose in condition.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried expanding the article a little bit. We could also add a map and a table.Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is start-class at 349 words and well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but sufficient, level of coverage by reputable news sources demonstrate significance. - Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The description of the event totals 168 words, or half a stub. The rest is BG & reax. Too thin for MP promotion. – Sca (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support substantial death toll. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I added everything I could find in English language sources. There could be more info in French sources but I don't speak the language.Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Passable, but barely over a stub. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article just about good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support barely qualifies but include for encyclopedic coverage; proposed shorter altblurb. - Indefensible (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olha Ilkiv

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Masayuki Uemura

 * Support Nice article. Well written and referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum RD quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim

 * Support Per nom. C-class fully sourced article. Good enough for RD.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well written comprehensive article. Off topic: there are now two South African activitists on the candidate page. What are the odds. KittenKlub (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Great work on the new article. TJMSmith (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lindiwe Mabuza

 * Support Comprehensive article, well written and referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully sourced and good enough for RD.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marjorie Tallchief

 * Support I added a couple of references, seems in good shape now. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Sarco suicide device passes legal review for use in Switzerland

 * Oppose, per the sourced article "Some 1,300 people died by assisted suicide in Switzerland in 2020 using the services of the country’s two largest assisted suicide organisations, Exit (no connection to Exit International) and Dignitas." This is not the first such means of assisted suicide in Switzerland; it may have been more newsworthy if this made Switzerland the first country to approve of assisted suicide. --M asem (t) 01:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This has made the news, although could be more suitable for DYK instead. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this is interesting, but I fail to see how this is worthy of ITN at all. Switzerland already has legal euthanasia. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality (Nitschke plans to release the open source plans for the Sarco by 2019.) and importance. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 04:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor story. The blurb is misleading, as it implies official approval for the device; in reality, as quoted in the cited Swissinfo article, the inventor merely told a journalist that he asked unnamed lawyers about the legality of the device and that he is "very pleased with the result", whatever that means.  Sandstein   11:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aside from what has been stated, I would wonder if we should post information about suicide devices on the Main Page, even if legal in the country involved. Assisted suicide isn't legal in many places. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Chancellor of Austria

 * The blurb should include "following the resignation of Alexander Schallenberg" and some more context on the replacement would be helpful in the article, it is a bit short at the moment on that part. --Tone 23:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks adequate. One minor change made. – Sca (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca. Quality looks acceptable Canadianerk (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements, although the chancellor article needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Medina Spirit

 * Support I was just about to nominate this. Article looks to be in good shape. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the article is thorough and sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marvin Morgan

 * Comment: Close but needs more citations.  Spencer T• C 05:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Spencer I added a few more citations to the article, would it be safe to say it's ready now? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support- citations where expected. Decently sized article. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I inserted a few footnotes and fixed some links, too. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted yesterday by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Hiatt

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 05:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Aung San Suu Kyi sentenced to four years in prison

 * Question Should we wait? There are more charges against her and it can add up to life in prison. Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significance is somewhat diminished as we already posted the coup in February, and the section on this period needs a rewrite as it is currently proseline with lots of extraneous detail.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Long-term political cause célèbre comes to a head. Widely and prominently covered, with much criticism of Myanmar military regime. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The coup being posted shouldn't diminish someone going to prison [again] when they received international coverage for efforts to come out of it. Gotitbro (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can do with a better blurb though, too lengthy and incoherent for the average reader. Gotitbro (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Support. She received a partial pardon and will serve two years (Al Jazeera and all sources above). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough. If she's later convicted of anything else, the blurb can be adjusted accordingly. Jim Michael (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, It is an important news and will start other events as well. Alex-h (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurbed in French, German versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually reviewing the article?  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just glanced through and there's a fair number of unsourced statements near the bottom half of the article. I'd also argue there's far too much excessive detail on her history as related to any litigation or complaints, but that's not an ITN item as long as it appears neutrally written. --M asem (t) 01:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Alex-h, Gotitbro, and Jim Michael. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Aung San Suu Kyi article has about 20 {cn} tags, and the 2021 arrest and trial section consists of mostly proseline. Please fix. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are too many tags for this to be ready on time. It is also a borderline case for me in terms of significance of news given that we already posted the coup in February. So lets wait for more charges against her so that there is more time for the article tags to be fixed. Tradedia talk 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Asleep at the switch. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unfortunately, the article has far too many CN tags to be posted on the main page. If someone wanted this posted on the main page, they would work on fixing that problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Citation issue has been fixed. It's good for the main page now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Have fixed all the tags that I could find. please review the votes. Gotitbro (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Proseline issues remain. There's a graph about her being moved, one about the trial beginning, and another about a delay in the trial when she got sick. Collectively, this reads very poorly. Our goal here is to encourage quality updates by featuring them; this is not quality.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Would someone care to define proseline? It's not in Oxford, Webster, Wiktionary or even Urban Dictionary. I suggest we not gabble in jargon. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you would benefit more from the definition of disruptive editing, with four off-topic comments in this nom alone.   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROSELINE. If you had already fixed this, this would have already been posted.  You should spend more time fixing articles and less time complaining that nothing you want is being done.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jargon. This user prefers English. – Sca (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Use English to fix the problems with the article if you want it posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Miles (musician)

 * Comment I have now upgraded and improved the article. Think there is more to be added with paper refs as stuff like Melody Maker etc aren't digitalised.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to me. RIP. I always loved the song, but didn't know it was called Music or who John Miles was... Tradedia talk 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. Sarada Menon

 * Comment - The ref number 13, referecing the fact that she was "a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award of Madras Neuro Trust" is dead. It seems the only issue in the article.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The deadlink has been revived with an updated URL. Lucky Ref.#13! --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good to me. Should be ready. Ktin (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Nagaland killings

 * Support - an escalation in the ongoing insurgency with a significant no. of deaths. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending cleanup noted by nom. There are a few minor issues with delineating the initial attack from subsequent killings.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support number of civilians death ae high.-Ameen Akbar (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is sufficiently comprehensive and well referenced, topic has been covered appropriately by reliable news sources, demonstrating significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. --PFHLai (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jacques Tits

 * Please add more refs, particularly to the "Life and career" and "Contributions" sections. --PFHLai (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christine Haidegger‎

 * Support Well sourced little article. KittenKlub (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. That was a nice and quick 5x expansion. Good luck at DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Dole
Think it could work as a blurb, Bob Dole was a massive figure in American politics for over two decades. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Likely blurb. Very widely covered, much subject info. – Sca (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It wasn't his run for president that made him notable, it was his role in the Senate, and that section of the article is far far too short to show that (that's orange tagged right now). The article is ready for RD outside that orange tag. --M asem (t) 17:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Household name for decades. Suggest we wait at least a while for article development. – Sca (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the US, absolutely, but not so much worldwide politics. Not a strong reason to post as a blurb (particularly with the article's lack of his political record outside of Presidental runs). --M asem (t) 18:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "2. oppose an item 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 unproductive." I don't know if this applies here but to me it kind of does.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My original oppose is not related to just being the US, but pointing out that the above "household name" is relying on being a US centric aspect. --M asem (t) 00:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tentative support RD, Oppose blurb Article does have an expansion tag so I would support once that has been sorted. As for the blurb, to be blunt (as Futurama once put it) he was a "Presidential loser". We don't tend to do blurbs for people who lost their one and only major election for head of state.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD pending removal of citation needed tags and accompanying orange banner in awards section. Tag on Senate section is no reason to hold back though. Bob Dole... Bob Dole... bob... dole... -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem. He's as important as you say he is in the United States, but that doesn't mean it's important beyond its borders. And that's not the case. He doesn't pass the Thatcher/Mandela filter and that he was a failed candidate for the presidency of that country and a senator for many years IMO is no reason for him to be blurb-worthy. One section is orange-tagged. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Worldwide, Dole is probably mostly known for being lampooned in The Simpsons. Never served in a cabinet, and I can't imagine us considering posting a blurb for a backbencher from another country. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb If we go by precedent, the 2008 runner-up with a long Congressional history was also RD only . No disrespect to the deceased, but even in America's closest ally, he's mainly known as the guy speaking in the third person who got abducted by Kang and Kodos. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Plain RD If anybody had a name that still speaks for itself, it's Bob Dole....Bob Dole! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a poor reason to include an image. We've only done that when the blurbs have gotten stale, but with the volcano, we clearly have a notable image. --M asem (t) 19:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Hadn't thought about what we'd be losing. A striking visage, but clearly no volcano. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose photo for RD Not a head of state, not a head of government, not sufficiently notable. Chrisclear (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD notable person. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, futile as this may be. Someone has to stand up for the notability of the former Majority Leader of the United States Senate, who effectively shares leadership of the federal legislative branch of the country, which is technically coequal with the executive and judicial branches. I would suggest that someone who holds this position and becomes the leading contender for the U.S. presidency is blurb-worthy. BD2412  T 22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the same rationale apply to someone who holds/held the position of leadership of the federal legislative branch of another country, and becomes the leading contender for the head of government of that country? Or does it only apply to US Presidential candidates? Chrisclear (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend in part on the structure of the government, and the means by which the position is contended. In parliamentary systems, the titular leader of the legislature often is the head of government. In countries where the legislature is clearly a subservient entity under the control of the executive, it wouldn't matter, and in countries where the head of government is not democratically selected, the meaning of being a "leading contender" for that position is also too shrouded in mystery to matter. I think there are very few countries that actually have three legally coequal branches of government, and a system wherein the leader of one branch can become a leading contender to be democratically elected to head another. BD2412  T 23:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of country where the three branches of government coexist equally. See Separation of powers. UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How many instances are there of leaders of one branch being selected by their party to credibly contend for leadership of another branch? BD2412  T 01:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IDK about other country, but the leader of the armed forces group parliament in my country was elected into presidency in a free and fair election twice. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they'll get a blurb, then. BD2412  T 01:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD now that all of the missing citations have been added, as far as I could see. Oppose blurb per above: someone in Bob Dole's position would never get a blurb in any other country.  We wouldn't blurb William Hague if he died today, why would we blurb Bob Dole? NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose His senate section is extremely short for a man who has been described the “Lion of the Senate”. I feel that some who approved this were discussing his nobility rather than the state of the article. I’d recommend pulling this until the section (rather important one) is expanded. Once the section is thoroughly expanded then I’ll support a possible blurb. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no sense in asserting that the article is incomplete because it doesn't live up to a purported nickname that doesn't even appear in the article. Lion of the Senate points to someone else. If the section can be expanded, by all means do so, but there is no concrete basis here for asserting that it is lacking. BD2412  T 05:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * However all obits cite his long senate career that lasted for decades. If he was a one term senator then sure a short senate section makes sense, but Dole was a Senate leader and longtime GOP Senator. It’s like having an influential actor with a short career section. His senate career section lacks information of his long tenure in the senate. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are conflating longevity with productivity, without justification, and your conclusions are therefore incorrect. His senate career section does specify the length of time for which he served in the senate. Show me a source that says that he was known for getting signature legislation passed or the like, and you will have a case for saying there is something missing. BD2412  T 16:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support - Definitely for RD. Article looks decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Cundall

 * Support Comprehensive article which is well written and referenced.KittenKlub (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but this is the first time I've heard a nominee described as a "gardening personality." Cheers. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cundall can also be described as a bloody commie gardener, but that violates NPOV.KittenKlub (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the UK there's been Percy Thrower, Alan Titchmarsh, Monty Don... c'mon, there must be some US gardening personalities. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nguyễn Thúc Thùy Tiên

 * This news story is older than the oldest item currently on MainPage. The proposed blurb won't be able to displace any existing blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Stonewall Jackson

 * The Discography section is unsourced. The prose has a few {cn} tags, too. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Gambian presidential election

 * Support The article seems ready, although it doesn’t have an "Aftermath" or "Reactions" section. I would change the proposed photo to the one on his wikibio, which looks more up to date. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Vinod Dua

 * Oppose: The whole career is covered under early life. Unnecessary controversy section (WP:CSECTION), with undue expanded statements; needs to be heavily condensed and incorporated into a career section. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Too much footnote-free materials. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Claude Humphrey

 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eileen Ash

 * Support was coming by to nominate this myself. Article looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the article is sourced and updated. What a long life! TJMSmith (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Semeru eruption

 * Plenty of sources in English, including NYT, not listed above due to paywall. - Sca (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - no referencing issues, long enough, death toll likely to increase. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, death toll significant, article looks ok. Brandmeistertalk  11:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant incident and article is in good condition. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Seems to me we should have waited a bit longer to see how much higher the toll gets. Thirty-five of 56 injuries termed severe, says AlJ. "Hundreds" of injuries may be an exaggeration. AP said 57 were hospitalized, of which 16 were 'critical.' – Sca (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-response to comment by User:Sca – The source you were posting seems to be outdated. CNN Indonesia says that 102 were injured and most victims suffered burns. (added by me after a bunch of mess-ups) (link: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20211205121045-20-730066/102-warga-lumajang-terluka-erupsi-semeru-sebagian-besar-luka-bakar) And I agree that "hundreds" of injuries may be somewhat exaggerating, given that "hundreds" is in the ballpark of 100-1000 (500 median or mean). ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ   (Talk)  15:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not a big fan of CNN as a RS. The BBC says "at least 56" injured. – Sca (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Nevermind - 45 people suffered burn marks according to Kompas (https://regional.kompas.com/read/2021/12/04/223240978/erupsi-semeru-dinkes-jatim-perkirakan-ada-warga-tertimbun-sulit-dievakuasi). Around 44% suffered burn marks. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ   (Talk)  15:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. The word "hundreds" (plural) did not make it to MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically disagree. Current blurb says "injuring more than a hundred people." Most RS articles linked above don't support such a large number. Also, RS's put toll at 13-14, which one must acknowledge isn't really a huge number as natural disasters go. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: FWIW, this event isn't currently listed in the French, Dutch, German, Swedish or Russian versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it's Sunday afternoon in Europe.--65.94.214.139 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, you might use this image: File:Ratusan rumah tertimbun abu vulkanik erupsi gunung Semeru.jpg. Shows the erupting mountain as well as the damages. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, Jeromi Mikhael. Things look too tiny once the image is squished onto the ITN template. It would be better to put it in the article than on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The current blurb pic. of dormant Mt. Semeru on a blue-sky day, though fairly recent, doesn't do much to illustrate this news event, IMO. – Sca (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a better pic, please proposed it here at ITN/C. If appropriate, a later screenshot from the same YouTube videoclip showing the damages may be useful. --PFHLai (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , how about this? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jeromi Mikhael. That is pretty much what I had in mind. I have prepared a cropped and brightened version (shown on the right), hoping that viewers can see the damages caused by the eruption. Does this work? Need a caption? --PFHLai (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit m8, I think you just need to add (damage pictured) or something like that to the blurb. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The pic is now posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Most RS reports put the number of injured at 56 (Reuters, BBC, AlJazeera, DW) or 57 (AP, LAT), substantially less than the "more than 100" in the current blurb. Suggest we replace "more than 100" with "more than 50," which would be accurate based on what's been reported so far. – Sca (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please revise and update the article with reliable sources and afterwards let us know here at ITN. The blurb should match the article. --PFHLai (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And remember, a lot of people don't go to the hospital when they're hurt. I don't know how many. But AP (copied in LAT) says 57 "hospitalized". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated after request from Sca, as Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/ten-people-trapped-after-indonesias-semeru-volcano-erupts-evacuated-2021-12-05/) says that 56 were injured, not hospitalized. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ   (Talk)  05:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb on MainPage is now updated to "... killing fifteen people and injuring dozens others ." --PFHLai (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Fortune FitzRoy, Duchess of Grafton
Support Article looks good enough to be on RD, well done. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Pakistan Sialkot lynching

 * Comment Not sure at this stage whether this deserves listing, but I am sure the Nominator's comment above are inflammatory and unhelpful. I would prefer to see wording more like "An example of what some see as incidents of violence over alleged blasphemy in Pakistan." HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Article is unusually well-referenced and composed. The very large number of people arrested for this, and the quick reactions from the international community, indicate that this is not a garden variety criminal proceeding. That this is directly related to Islamism and blasphemy is well-supported in sources. Altblurb added to conform to our general format.130.233.213.55 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Has this already been determined by a court of law to be a murder or lynching? 331dot (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Pakistani PM calls it plainly "the Sialkot lynching". I'm unsure if Pakistan has a statutory definition of lynching (like the US), but it's the most concise and descriptive term available. Alternative could be "kills" but sources on all sides have gone beyond that.130.233.213.55 (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The PM is entitled to his opinion, but that is not a judgment by a court. (even just as a murder). 331dot (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb. Per 130.233.213.55, this is significant. Canadianerk (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Event occurred on December 3. The oldest current blurb is dated December 4.  Story is stale.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 This is a major news. Was widely published in all countries. Please consider making an exception to post this. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We post stories chronologically. There's no where to put this story in the ITN box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. But WP:IAR should apply here. There is no date mentioned in the box anyway. So adding it will not break anything. Could be added on top or bottom. Venkat TL (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We simply don't do that. There could be arguments if this story had taken a while to propagate to major sources, but the Guardian piece is dated Dec 3, the day it happened. This simply missed the ITN window. --M asem (t) 13:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You've asserted that IAR should apply. You've provided no particular evidence in support that it should.  There are many widely published news stories.  You've made no case that this one story is important enough to post even though you waited 5 extra days to nominate it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A mob riot that lacks general significance or wider impact. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Stale Significance is debatable, but not even in the ballpark of significance that would justify invoking IAR. Would also oppose as tabloid fodder; religious violence is somewhat common in the subcontinent. Inflating one story or another is inflammatory.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Support struck per stale, but just barely. An outside possibility might be to shorten either the Austrian or Nagaland blurbs to free up one line at ITN for this item, but I can't recall such happening before.130.233.213.55 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Françoise Delord

 * Support - Start-class and fully sourced.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DYK check says there are only 1414 characters (235 words) of readable prose. Any more to add? This is a brand-new wikiarticle. Might as well expand it to 1500+ characters and qualify for a DYK nomination, too. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs 1 more fully fleshed out paragraph to meet ITN 3 paragraph minimum.  Spencer T• C 02:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a few details with citations. I'm somewhat limited due to most sources being in French. TJMSmith (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I’ve added some details to indicate the significance of her zoo. Seems to me it’s long enough now but just one editor’s opinion! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With 2217 characters (379 words) of readable prose, this wikibio is long enough to not be considered a stub. There seems to be enough footnotes where they are expected. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlotte Mailliard Shultz

 * Support Nicely done article. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Antony Sher

 * Comment needs lots more sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Joseph is being kind. Every item on Stage performances, Filmography and Awards and nominations has to be sourced (and current count is zero...) KittenKlub (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Laos-China Railway

 * Oppose Very interesting article and development. Article is in good shape, however this is not high speed. "suitable for 160 km/h passenger" High-speed rail is defined as >= 250 km/h for new lines and >= 200 km/h for upgraded lines. KittenKlub (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I missing how this is ITNR? 331dot (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Opposr per KittenKlub Even if it was high speed, I don't think we would nominate it unless it was the first on the continent or something.Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant link in China's Belt and Road Initiative. See SCMP for some analysis of its strategic significance.  The current top blurb is days old and is a similar matter of South Asian development or lack of same.  China is getting things done while India isn't.  Either way, they are in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This boils down to "railway opens". This isn't even technically a high speed railway. Countries spending money in other countries as diplomacy or part of a geopolitical struggle is common. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Laos' first high speed rail doesn't seem to be the key point of the news overall (especially when it should be considered higher-speed rail instead according to definition). This could be significant but the blurb needs to shift the focus. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 18:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The broader impact of this beyond development aid/loan is not immediately discernible from the blurbs or the article. Gotitbro (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Darlene Hard

 * Comment: IMO, a 300-word start-class article cannot provide good enough coverage for a Hall-of-Fame career with 16 Grand Slam titles and quite a few medals and trophies won while the subject represented her country in international tournaments. Quite some elaboration and expansion are sorely needed. BTW, the tables need refs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Poedjono Pranyoto

 * Support Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment looks good enough for RD to me, marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) MLB lockout begins

 * Comment: Article could use some additional information about what the practical impact of a lockout is ("labor stoppage" is mentioned but not much additional detail). I know some stuff could be CRYSTALBALL but how does this affect the league now, especially since it's the off season?  Spencer T• C 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The strike 26 years ago isn't called a lockout on WP, and the lockout 31 years ago is called the seventh work stoppage. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A strike is when the bosses want the workers to go inside but the workers refuse, a lockout is when the workers want the workers to go inside but the bosses refuse or the bosses want the bosses to go inside but the workers refuse. Though there are more possibilities: The bosses want the bosses to go outside and the workers refuse or the workers want the workers to go outside and the bosses refuse or the bosses want the workers to go outside but they refuse or the workers want the bosses to go outside but they refuse or the workers want the bosses to go inside but they refuse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely! But is this a strike? WaPo doesn't confirm, WaPo don't deny. In any case, MLB could mean anyone to the average schmuck. A better blurb might explain who's stopping who from working and why. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A lockout is when management prevents the workers from working; a strike is when the workers refuse to work. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose rich men want to get richer and throw their toys out. DYK time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In case we reach consensus on its significance, the right time to post would be when it ends. That's what we did with the 2011 NBA lockout, and this is nothing different from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. This is less significant because the season is over.  If this goes into next year and prevents the start of the season, that would be more notable. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Baseball itself is a sport of little interest to most of the world and some baseball players striking in one country, no matter how "rare" it might be, is not news to most of the world or even the country it's happening in. Even the NYT and WaPo don't consider it newsworthy enough to mention it on the top of their websites, you have to scroll down to find it. On non-US newssites like The Guardian, The Times, Der Spiegel etc. you won't even find it mentioned in their sports sections (they do mention Arsenal's Gabriel repelling home invaders with a baseball bat though which thus would actually be more newsworthy since it's been reported in multiple countries). I agree with TRM that this might well be a good fit for DYK but ITN is already oftentimes too US-centric as it is (plus there is already a baseball-related item in there). Regards So  Why  09:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alvin Lucier

 * Oppose - Orange tagged and very unsourced.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) India repeals 2020 farm laws

 * Comment From what I'm reading the farmers are still striking until they know for certain that the laws are repealed. Dunno if that affects the timing here. --M asem (t) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - further status and article updates have been made since previous nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The bill cleared both houses and received assent. It's ready to proceed to mainpage. Canadianerk (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article has been updated for the repeal. This was opposed a few weeks ago on ITN as there were no definitive details, but now there are, it can be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Following a year of protests by farmers, India repeals the Indian agriculture acts of 2020 is probably better. It would quite strange, if not impossible, for India to revoke the Afghanistan/Russian/... agriculture acts of 2020. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Do four yes votes constitute a consensus? – Sca (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no opposition to this nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, at WP:FPC, it takes five supports (a so-called 'quorum') for promotion to a (potential) TFP. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support to fulfill a "quorum". We don't want to be like AFD where discussion is decided in a week... Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we should be like any other Wiki entity. It was more an explanation of why I asked the question. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WTA suspends Chinese tournaments

 * Comment – Fairly widely covered, However, the update consists of one sentence added to each target article. In the best of all possible worlds, a separate article on the WTA decision and its background would be advisable. But that seems rather unlikely. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds per Sca's comments and the fact that I had to add a blp sources tag because of all the unsourced paragraphs in the Career section. Undecided on significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Question what is the actual impact of this? There's been no WTA tournaments in China or Hong Kong for 2 years because of the pandemic, and none confirmed for either country in the 2022 WTA Tour so far as I can see. So this suspension seems to just be symbolic (unless I'm missing something). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC radio story I was listening to this morning said this would affect 10 tournaments (including 1 in Hong Kong) in 2022, with a total of $100m prize money. There is (or would have been), for example, a tournament with $14m prize money in Shenzhen.  Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Looks like acceptably widespread coverage. Pulling out of China is a significant move for the WTA; three of the top tier tournaments (two WTA 1000 tournaments and the WTA Finals) are contracted to be played there. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Joseph points out, there's no immediate changes in any planned tournaments from this. It would be different if this was a much larger sporting organization, like the Olympics, pulling out of China. --M asem (t) 03:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per RaiderAspect. The comparison to the Olympics is an unreasonable expectation to place, in my opinion. The world has taken notice of this story, with the article noting that the EU has expressed concern, adding further weight to this story. Canadianerk (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article is a long way from being ready on quality, so discussion about significance is a bit moot at this point. I am leaning oppose on that ground per Joseph and Masem though, on the grounds that we're not a news ticker and the overall concrete impact of this seems limited. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Further coverage on Thursday includes Chinese condemnation: . However, the WTA target article still contains only one sentence about this event. Not enough. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the target article in the blurb is actually Peng Shuai, which has 4 sentences on it. But both Peng Shuai and Women's Tennis Association are orange-tagged, so neither can be used for an ITN target currently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, well the target article in the nomination box is Peng Shuai all right, but the proposed blurb also contains a link to the WTA. Kinda confusing for an old dog like me. Still oppose nom. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Made a couple anti-POV edits. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Question How common is it for us to post an event at ITN (in this case the suspension) that is seemingly not notable enough to deserve its own article? (Note: this is a genuine question, and should not be misinterpreted as an Oppose, or at least not yet; indeed I was originally thinking of supporting, until I noticed this aspect of the matter.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not very common, although it sometimes happens. – Sca (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the sexual assault allegations are very much notable enough for an event article. Peng Shuai has become long and unwieldy, and the fact that no one hasn't done it yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't split it into its own page and replace the section with a shorter summary. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 20:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sexual allegations are made every day. Further, they are just that – allegations – until corroborated in some fashion. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That section needs massive trimming. Remember that we're not a newspaper and should not be reporting day to day events at that level of detail, but what's enduring about it. The section's not inappropriate but it is overly detailed for an encyclopedia given that we're talking only allegations and speculation. --M asem (t) 20:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A sports related controversy upto an ITN level blurb would have to be a country wide doping ban or similar. Don't see the significance otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose How is this still open after a week? Obviously there is no consensus to post and at this point the story has entirely left the news cycle. Regardless, the target article is still missing several sources and only dedicates a single sentence to the story. BSMRD (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grand Jojo

 * Comment Yesterday, I've cleaned up the worst, however his page still needs a lot of work including referencing his endless discography. The biography is not ready yet. KittenKlub (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it's been cleaned up and referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment agree that it needs discography sourcing. Also, it doesn't mention Olé, Olé, Olé (or "Allez, Allez, Allez", as I believe they performed it in French), would be nice to add. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)