Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2023

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

RD: Ana Ofelia Murguía
Mexican actress, best known for voicing Mamá Coco in Coco. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Prose section too short; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The filmography section has no sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shecky Greene
American comedian. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:203B:1879:83D1:C29B (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Decent chunk of unreferenced material and some poor sources as well. The   Kip  07:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, sourcing has been cleaned up. The   Kip  22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good in terms of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Melissa Hoskins
Australian track and road racing cyclist, allegedly killed by her husband, Rohan Dennis, another Australian road racing cyclist. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Results section needs more refs, but the rest of the article is in great shape. The   Kip  07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Results section is still orange-tagged for the need of citations. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Benjamin Kiplagat

 * Blurb? Three times he represented Uganda on the world's greatest steeplechase stage, now he's stabbed to death in his brother's car while in Kenya. Who stabbed him? We don't know. Why was he in Kenya? We don't know. Did he not have his own car? Exactly. It's not much at the moment, informationwise. But investigationally, the game is clearly afoot (wait for it). Of course, I hear a certain subset of regulars out there, and yes, he was neither the next Nelson Mandela nor another Gordie Howe. Nobody's saying he was. Death itself is the end-of-year story here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As (presumably) one of those regulars, I'm going to oppose blurb on those regular grounds anyway. JM (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Article quality is quite poor. Oppose burb on merits. Subject's death is tragic but his significance is nowhere near the level that would justify a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 259 words of prose. Anything else to write about this guy? How about a few lines on his early life, education and training, with a reference or two supporting his date and place of birth? Post-athletics career? --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Cale Yarborough
Longtime racing driver, particularly in NASCAR. Won three consecutive NASCAR Cup Series championships in the late 1970s, a feat that was seen as remarkable at the time. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 20:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: It is one of the greats NASCAR drivers and a Hall of Famer in the sport Meganinja202 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs work on citations.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support:I see no issue with the article. Unless someone can be more definite than a vague "needs work on Citations", I say a person as notable as Yarborough definitely belongs on the front page. One section does only have one reference, but I don't know what other references they want for it. EEBuchanan (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can be more definite than a vague 'needs work on Citations'... There's actual tags in the article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * THere were not when I was looking at it (some time before I actually made the comment). Someone has since added them, which is helpful.
 * EEBuchanan (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the tags by 02:37 1 Jan, before my "Needs work on citations" comment, which you quoted 18 hours later in your !vote at 20:20.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Five cn tags and an orange tag. Article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Abdication of Margrethe II of Denmark
Abdication of a royal head of state. While the change itself (in two weeks) will also be newsworthy, the announcement was made today. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 17:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Very historical event, and as far as I recall we usually do post royal abdications. The question is whether we post it now, or on 14 January 2024. I don't know what would be most correct. I have also changed the date format to be "14 January 2024" as this style is more common for international events. Gust Justice (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality for the usual reason. Conditional on article improvement will support once the abdication becomes official. The succession is what we normally blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given how near the actual event will be, we can wait until that date, at which point a successor should be known. Add in the article quality issued discussed above. --M asem (t) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Her successor is known since 1972. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems quite notable. 2A02:908:676:E640:7830:DBEE:B63:525E (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability. Is a historic event for the country as it is also the first abdication of a Danish monarch since 1146. From a Queen who reigned for more than 50 years I look forward to reading a longer and more detailed article. In addition, there are unsourced paras and lines. I don't think we will have to wait until 14 January, because on that day we can blurb Frederik's accession to the throne in the same way as we did with Juan Carlos I of Spain and Prince Felipe in 2014. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Definitely notable enough (Margrethe's abdication would leave Europe without a female monarch in a damn long while), but it's in a mere 2 weeks time when Frederik becomes King. Posting it now would take unnecessary space in the ITN field and posting it twice would be even more senseless. As for quality, I also believe it needs some kind of refurbishment, though we could say that in every ITN candidate post, so it's nothing new. Add some more details, some sources, maybe more about the abdication, and we're good in my eyes. - CDE34RFV (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Very notable, change of longest reigning monarch in Europe. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support of course. Abdication of a monarch is very notable (not to mention that she’s been ruling for 52 years).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for ITN. Historic announcement.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Until 14 January, then post. Curbon7 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for posting, neutral on whether to post it now or on the 14th. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending orange tag resolving. Better to post now than wait for successor when the news will be stale. Brandmeistertalk  21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a change in prime minister. We have known who her successor is for 52 years. There will be a royal succession in 14 days, hardly something that can be considered stale. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- If orange tag is dealt with. Thriley (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the date of her abdication, and include her successor as a combined blurb (change of head of state). Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the 14th when the actual change takes place. Canuck 89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page  03:15, January 1, 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but Wait. Very notable but wait until that day happens. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The update is currently two sentences in the lead and two substantially identical ones in the body (in their own section); and one of each of those is redundant to the blurb. That's insufficient.  There's more information in this discussion than there is in the article.  Waiting until the abdication's effective will give us time to get the article properly in shape. —Cryptic 04:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we bold Abdication of Margrethe II instead, it's much closer to postable quality. —Cryptic 07:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Theoretically the bolded article at ascension would be Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark (as Frederick X), which also needs some work. Curbon7 (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until 1/14 when she officially abdicates, and post with the accession of (what will be) Frederik X. The   Kip  06:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until she actually abdicates. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until the abdication occurs. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but Wait. Significant event, but wait till 14 January. – PrinceofPunjab (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait until the 14th of January. Setarip (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the change of the head of state, which will be ITN/R, when it occurs. No point in blurbing the mere announcement of something that will be ITN/R when it actually happens just two weeks later. JM (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Head of government is ITNR in Denmark, not head of state. —Cryptic 22:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, I still oppose blurbing the announcement. We should wait until it happens and blurb the actual change of head of state. JM (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Tentative oppose, then wait Still has the big ol' banner.
 * If the banner is removed, we can post the article when she actually steps down (as opposed to blurbing it twice, which would be bizarre, or blurbing only the announcement of an event rather than the actual event, which would be even more bizarre).  Bremps  ...  06:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Eddie Bernice Johnson
Member of the US House of Representatives. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 16:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once ready. Apart from a missing electoral history, the article looks good. - CDE34RFV (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Electoral history sections using Election box are optional, as theoretically it would be covered in the prose. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently still at least 5 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Pilger
Australian journalist and documentary filmmaker. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:400C:3CCF:54FC:F39A (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, very influential person in many social disciplines 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneequalsequalsone (talk • contribs)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Clean up tags remain in the "Views" section, and the "Documentaries and career" section include unsourced paragraphs. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourcing is sufficient in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (tentative) - I agree with Jusdafax that the sourcing is sufficient. The tag in the Views section is inappropriate, saying it’s using too many primary sources. But it has to to use Primary sources. Pilger is a journalist. How else can you source a section about Pilger’s views? But if there is a problem, it’s the Bibliography section. Should include ISBN’s for the publication list. And Pilger’s documentaries need a reference source. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it has to to use Primary sources. Pilger is a journalist. How else can you source a section about Pilger’s views? Perhaps if secondary sources aren't covering and analyzing them, it's WP:UNDUE to mention them? Or secondary sources just need to be found. —Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. The tags are silly and should not prevent this from being posted. Thriley (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Echoing Trauma Novitiate's comment above, the Bilbiography (Works) section needs ISBNs or citations. Also, the primary source orange tags need to either be resolved or removed if not an issue.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bryan Ansell
Co-creator of Warhammer 40,000. 147.192.103.42 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Wilkinson
Highly acclaimed British actor of film, television, and stage. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regrettable oppose On quality of course. Career section needs refs and his filmography needs additional sources.
 * just finished sourcing his career section and filmography. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you! My issues have been addressed and article is in fantastic shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Question. Can we have a photo RD? Kirill C1 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Stephen 22:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Tony Hudgell
Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Tragic story and article is of good quality. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose These types of "firsts" are better covered by DYK, not ITN. --M asem (t) 13:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ineligible for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's true. This is why I think we should have DYK be open to nominations there of articles where something interesting has just happened that is reported in the news but not the type of story that is good for ITN. — M asem (t) 14:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article appeared on DYK on 28 August 2022. See talk page. JennyOz (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN-worthy. Anecdotal and not much more. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this even the UK's highest civilian award? It shows up pretty low on Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom, though the higher ones all seem to be military in nature. —Cryptic 17:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Highest UK civilian award is the George Cross. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I note that this piece of trivia ("youngest ever") isn’t even mentioned in the article.  Schwede 66  17:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Schwede66, the double amputation isn't trivial, is it? I suspect that an age of nine years makes Hudgell the youngest BEM recipient by a long way. But I'm not sure if that information has been published or how to check. It's not included at British Empire Medal. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose the bolded article would have to be 2024 New Year Honours. Which happen every year and are never blurbed.  This is a run-of-the-mill event, and not world-important news.  The "hook" of "it's a nine-year-old amputee" is a "hook"; which is what DYK does and ITN does not do. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gil de Ferran
French-born Brazilian racing driver. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:6909:F19:8772:5F70 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This article has multiple unsourced sections. They should probably be improved before posting. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Willing to support when unsourced claims have been taken care of.BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It took a Herculean effort, 32 edits and 13,400 bytes of added text, now most statements are now sourced. There are still two citation needed tags in the article but those shouldn't hold the article from being posted. A great racing legend lost, unfortunately. Courtesy pings to and . ~  Tails   Wx  03:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ok now. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Les McCann
American jazz pianist and vocalist. Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support He was 88, inspired much hip hop and is survived by a decent article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced. Looks good. Thriley (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hermann Baumann (musician)
Legendary German hornist, a pioneer of the natural horn, but also playing in the premiere of Ligeti's Horn Trio. There wasn't much, just a short article with most of the refs no longer working. I'm still not happy with the tiny image and the lack of a decent obit, but don't want to wait until the last possible day again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Relatively short but meets minimum standards and is fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 06:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Maurice Hines
American actor, singer and choreographer. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:203B:1879:83D1:C29B (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in poor shape ref-wise. The   Kip  06:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Joey Meyer
American basketball coach--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple CN tags. The   Kip  06:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have eliminated two of them. Although the other one has become 2 tags, that is because I have refed multiple facts in a multifact tag. So the amount of uncited content is less than was related to the former final tag.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not comprehensive without some more coverage of his high school and college playing career esp. playing for DePaul under his father.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I have done all the editing I am going to do to this article. It seems that the optimal expansion is beyond my level of commitment/interest.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Gustavo Cisneros
Venezuelan businessman and media magnate. NoonIcarus (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple CN tags, several woefully under-cited sections, and one wholly-uncited one. The   Kip  06:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The tags were not in the page when I nominated the article. I will try to solve them in the future. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Hardie Boys
Former Governor-General of New Zealand. Some sourcing needs to improve.  Schwede 66  05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Update: I've added some content and everything that's there is now referenced. It could be expanded, but it's good to go in its current form.  Schwede 66  05:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Virtually nothing is said about his five-year term as Governor General beyond dates, a controversy and his twice appointments as Knight. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply, . That's a tricky one as the governor general's role is very much to not stand out. However, I've done the following things:
 * I've added the constitutional, ceremonial and community functions of the role to the bio.
 * I've restructured the article by removing the controversies subheading; it is exactly what a GG is not supposed to do.
 * I hope that's ok now and finds your support.  Schwede 66  01:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced. Looks good. Thriley (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support time to post. Thanks Schwede. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Herman Raucher
Oscar-nominated screenwriter. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:790F:727A:3A93:284B (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs more references.  Spencer T• C 06:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Per Myrberg

 * Support Seems to be fully sourced and of adequate length. The   Kip  07:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any RS for the date and place of birth, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for his birthday.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnote. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mbongeni Ngema
South African musician and playwright. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:794F:2A2F:5B15:170 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have just upgraded this article significantly, although it could always do with more. Page view up from nearly zero to over 20,000 on the 27th nearly 40,000 on the 28th. (Not sure how these days are calculated - which time zone?) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - widely covered, notable, high page views, article quality now okay, close to fully cited. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still uncited tags and an unreferenced section. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just cited the last few outstanding things, and hidden a couple of uncited for later checking. It's ready to go and it is timely as he has just died. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now fully sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vijayakanth

 * Procedural support | Meets requirements. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is very much covered by various news outlets and media channels. The article has been well sourced and there are around two Citation tags to be amended. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Several cn tags and an unsourced section. Article's tone such as some of the wording used makes the article a bit unencyclopedic. Support Article has improved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is very much covered by various news channels.Thousands of people at his funeral and major figure in Tamil Nadu Politics.Article is well written.Errors are being fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1473:923D:B107:CA3E:5C7E:54AE (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Three orange tags and, more generally, many missing citations across the article. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely unsourced and much work required to get it the to required state. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment @,@ ,@ I have added more references to the articles and cleared the concerns with regards to orange tags and citation tags. I hope it is much better now to take a look at it. Abishe (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now Much improved article. Good decision to remove uncited honours secton. Nigej (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herb Kohl
It needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks alright for me and Kohl's notable enough to deserve a post. Support in principle, Oppose on quality - CDE34RFV (talk) 12:42 & 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two unsourced sections and some cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Added some refs. While the committee assignments section still needs refs, I believe it is uncontroversial enough that it shouldn't be an obstacle to posting. Davey2116 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Davey2116. I believe it should be ready to post now. - CDE34RFV (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to post.BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There's an orange tag at . Per WP:ITNUPDATE: —Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I attached this to source his committee assignments. It's not a great format to just list every committee they've ever served on, but it's how it's done here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone has since tagged the section for expansion. —Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a full committee list is extremely unnecessary here. Bob Dole, for example, quite nicely weaves together his major chairmanships together with what he accomplished in those roles without inundating the article with a crufty list. I think as long as Kohl's major committee positions are acknowledged (which they are), that is sufficient for ITN. Curbon7 (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. There is no need to expand on committees for this article to meet ITN requirements. Thriley (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Though the orange tag was removed, I think it would still have been fine to post with it, as the potential expansion needed was not considered necessary for the article to be comprehensive enough for ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gaston Glock
Inventor of the Glock pistol. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is brief but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per as the brand itself is iconic (through news, TV, videogames, films and music videos), moreso than its founder. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Pivotal figure for polymer pistols. Koltinn   (talk)  23:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed: Pulled blurb, posted RD) RD/Blurb: Jacques Delors
Eighth president of the EU, Minister of Finance in France, led the Delors Committee – Carhles (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - one cn as far as I can see, but otherwise looks fine. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * blurb? Delors is a figure worthy of blurb. Being executive president of an international organization such as the EU, and having a fundamental role in monetary integration with the euro and the future of the EU are reasons that, IMO, are sufficient for a blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and I also think a blurb should be considered, he had a profound impact on recent European history. Yakikaki (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready Referencing is in poor shape. This is going to need some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, oppose on quality He basically invented the Euro, so I think he passes the significance test. Quality of article is poor though. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article's quality such as sourcing has been fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on principle, as I think we should abolish them entirely except for assassinations, murders, &cThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as he played a key role in the transition from the European Economic Community to the European Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article now adequately sourced--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as not as important as e.g. a world leader, which is the standard ITN requires currently to have a blurb for their death. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Blurb should simply read "Former president of the European Commission". Have firmed up referencing problems.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Important figure in the EU, influential figure in EU-politics and the article's quality is not bad. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Well done to everyone who helped fix the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. Update the picture when ready. --Tone 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb While ready for RD, the article does not have any significant details of what his influence was beyond a lede and a body sentence. There appears to be sources that would be able to build out a paragraph or three to better explain this, but without it, a blurb was definitely undue at this time. --M asem (t) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The “President of the European Commission” section looks like a good summary of his work, with more details about his achievements available on Delors Commission. I don’t know if any further expansion is really needed per WP:SPINOFF when the main article is linked immediately below the section’s title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose blurb I oppose posting any RD as a blurb where the death itself isn't a big story. We should only blurb deaths if the reaction is like David Bowie-level, or where the death itself is the story, like a military strike or assassination. I believe that the death should be transformational, rather than focusing on the life. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull, what a coup! Bureaucrat who reached 98% of 100 years of age and doesn't meet any of the extremely loose requirements for a blurb posted. Insufficient debate time allotted. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you propose as sufficient debate time?—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More than 1 day. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support although I completely understand the objections such as Muboshgu's above. In the end, we either stop posting RDs as blurbs completely, or we end up having these arguments about how notable these people are.  We've got it wrong a lot of times now. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We sure have. And I do respect the view that led to posting this as a blurb and don't expect it to be pulled. Seems he had an impactful life. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, important person who meets the blurb requirements. Sahaib (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One half sentence of relevant, non-redundant prose update. Objectively does not meet WP:ITNCRIT.  Posting this was negligent and no admin should have considered it.  Pull. —Cryptic 18:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Blurb per Cryptic. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, I have serious issues about the prose size for an article about a supposedly transformative figure in global politics. Delors's article has under 1,000 words of prose outside of the lede and textboxes. Heck, I think most sports articles for moderately important sportspeople are longer. And for having such an important role in the creation of the Eurozone, the paragraph in question that discusses how Delors contributed thereto is all of MAYBE five sentences long, and that's being generous. Yikes. DarkSide830 (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull He was sleeping at home. That's all the update adds. He could have cured cancer in the '90s and it wouldn't change the non-storiness of this supposedly big story. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Posted absurdly fast (less than 24h) later without strong consensus re: blurb. WP:ITNRDBLURB is fairly clear that posting a blurb for a “major figure” requires a thorough discussion to establish consensus, and suggests that the RD post is adequate during such time. There is no reason for the blurb to be posted so quickly. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted absurdly fast (less than 24h)...: It was posted after 22+ hrs. —Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at... but
 * Oppose blurb His timely death is nothing more than a timely death. Does his passing meet the threshold of coverage we normally require when taking a highly coveted spot on ITN? Personally, I don't think so.
 * Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at... You said posting after less than 24 hours was "absurd". I stated it was posted at 22+ hours.  So I guess that ~2 hour difference made it "absurd" for you?—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with that? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled and dropped down to RD - Given the above comments and clear lack of current consensus for a blurb at this time. No cricitism of the initial decision, as there was an initial support for a blurb, but with comments since the posting there is a clear absence of consensus. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb An influential EU leader, yes, but does not meet the exceptional requirements for a blurb. RD is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Per others above Centuries123 (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling As I previously stated, I don't think we should be pulling blurbs except in egregious cases of quality issues. There was consensus at the time of posting, so let it just be. We're posting too little anyway. Khuft (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Per above. Doesn't make the grade. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling I agree with Khuft. If there are no quality issues to require pulling, then I think we should leave it up. I remember the same thing happened with John Lewis a few years back; in both cases pulling an already-posted death blurb just seems odd. Davey2116 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is a lack of a substantial text update, which is not a direct violation of, but runs contrary to what is generally desired under WP:ITNUPDATE. This is, effectively, a quality issue as it related to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Influential figure, fixture in European politics. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Hugely influential figure in the development and formation of the modern EU. It's not a perfect analogy, but pulling his blurb probably the equivalent (in US terms) to pulling the blurb on a former president (or even Kissinger). - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(RD posted) RD/Blurb: Wolfgang Schäuble
German cabinet minister in many governments, longest-serving parliamentarian in German history, negotiator of German reunification and euro crisis – Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That sound like a blurb. Key figure in German politics in last forty years.
 * More than 100 references (119 as of now). Is it enough for posting RD at least? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The truth is that he was a figure that was important beyond the German borders, as he was "director" of the European management of the economic crisis from 2008 onwards, affecting the countries of southern Europe (and negatively affecting his reputation). I think a blurb may be, perhaps, worthy of discussion. In any case, there are lines and paras that have no sources and should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here to also support the idea of a blurb. Another very important European politician to pass away recently. Yakikaki (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Passed away recently, but a couple of years after he'd left active political importance. There's no need to replace him, as there is for, say, Rotimi Akeredolu. There might be some real intrigue/shakeup in that case (and similar ones). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If he was that important, it is not clear immediately from the article. It needs something like a Legacy or Impact section (perhaps tied to the Recognitions section) to explain this in detail. There may be bits and pieces buried in other sections, but we should have something that makes it very clear to the reader why we're drawing special attention to this person. (I also feel the quality is on the weaker side for a blurb). M asem (t) 12:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 *  Not Ready A handful of CN tags but also an orange neutrality tag that definitely has to be handled before this could be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on quality per Ad Orientem. On notability, however, at least RD. Schäuble was one of, if not the most influential non-ruling post-war politician in Germany. Being Minister of the Interior during German reunification and Finance Minister during Europe's biggest economical crisis says a lot about his influence not just in Germany, but also in Europe (as Marco Polo and Alsor already said). In addition to being a trailblazer for physically disabled politicians in Germany, I, as a German, can confirm that Schäuble was generally well-liked and highly regarded across party/ideological lines. As such, the news of his demise were met with dismay not just from politicians, but also from the people in general. - CDE34RFV (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By now Support Blurb. Article looks good and no tags left. Maybe I'm biased, but if Delors gets blurbed, then Schäuble deserves it as well. - CDE34RFV (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delors got pulled from the blurb since. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone is presumed notable enough for RD by default. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on article's quality. The controversy section has two tags. I've been told before that controversy sections are a bit tricky in terms for the article's quality and that removing the section altogether wasn't a bad idea. Not sure what others think?
 * Schäuble was involved in the CDU donations scandal and lost influence. Should be in the Controversies section. Also his role in the EU debt crisis concerning Greece. The rest should be removed. Grimes2 (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Be that is it may, the section has two tags with some issues in terms of neutrality. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the section. Two small subsections left over. I've removed also the two orange tags. Grimes2 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD per TDKR Chicago 101. Grimes2 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD as well. Article is fine. Support blurb too, if the discussion turns that way, but let's already post it as RD. Khuft (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD / Oppose Blurb Clearly meets threshold for RD, but doesn't rise to the level of blurb, even though he was a key figure in regional/national politics. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone who has article meets threshold for RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Definitely a transformative figure in the history of Germany, as well as the eurozone as a whole. Davey2116 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. No doubt an important figure within German politics. But there are 195 particular countries out there and reading through the article I struggle to see even the alleged massive role that Schäuble played in the EU besides the article seeming to state a lot that he was playing "hardball [sic]". DarkSide830 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But Germany is the country whose politics influences other countries. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Same can be said for 194 other countries. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this RD ready? BangJan1999 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD –  Schwede 66  17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ghali Umar Na'Abba
Former Speaker, Nigerian lower chamber. Article needs some cleanup. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose | Nigerian pols seem to be dropping like flies today This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't hold up posting RDs because too many people from one country die too close together. We pause because articles are not properly referenced, as is the case here.  Schwede 66  02:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one footnote for 1300+ words of prose. And tagged for {POV} issues. This wikibio is not ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rotimi Akeredolu
Incumbent governor of Ondo State Additional references, Channelstv, Premium times Gwanki (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Just one CN tag. I think it's passable for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I "took care of" that dubious claim. Still a little left for nitpickers to fix, grammarwise. Was thinking a blurb might be in order earlier, but no longer. The new governor seems to have known this moment was coming for a good while, and the transition went smoothly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Sun-kyun
Sad story. Some citation issues but it seems that it's almost there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an unsourced claim in the 2007-2012 section. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added that CN; can't find any English-language sources to confirm that Lee was appointed ambassador for the Health Insurance Review Agency in 2007, and won an award from the Korea Advertisers Association in 2008. Maybe there is something in Korean. Funcrunch (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m going to be bold and remove that sentence, since I haven’t been able to find any sources that mention the appointment or specific reward, and it is only one sentence. There is possibly a source for it though so if it is found it should be added back in. Dantus21 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support though issues needs resolving first. Mainly as he was one of the stars of one of Korea's best known film. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There are some issues in the article but most of the it seems decently cited. There is a merge proposal but imo that shouldn’t block an RD listing since that’s more technical and not related to any content issues. Dantus21 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable, and the article is decent enough. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that the article appears suitably referenced. Funcrunch (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready, very notable and tragic death which hopefully will get to RD soon. Flipand Flopped  ツ 23:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Tony Oxley
British free jazz drummer. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do all albums which already have their own article also need refs? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything else is now sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The subsections under are only lightly sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do all albums which already have their own article also need refs? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR reads: —Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All 30 albums which are linked in that section have reliable sources, most of them multiple sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However when I look at Vade Mecum the only mention of Oxley is an another uncited section. Nigej (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So someone has to go to Vade Mecum and explicitly link the credits page of the existing AllMusic source to Oxley's name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:ALLMUSIC, there's no consensus that it's reliable. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up. It's quite alarming that anyone might think Oxley did not play on all of those albums. The degree of effort that seems to be required here, to in some way "prove" he did, just so his name appears on the Main page, for maybe a day or two, doesn't really seem justified. Especially when it's a one-person effort. I've avoided discogs.com as it's not considered reliable (although in my experience it's 99.9% reliable), but I had assumed that AllMusic was somehow better than useless. Perhaps I should just denominate. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively uncited information can be deleted/removed. Is it fundamental to the article? Nigej (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say the catalogue of a musician's records was pretty fundamental to that artist. But a separate Discography article could be created. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * :::::::: I agree with the nominator here. Clearly this is an article ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Tom Smothers
Half of the Smothers Brothers, a popular comedy duo of the 60's. Hosted a very popular tv show in the 1960s, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, where many acts of the time appeared on, including The Who's imfamous drum explosion caused by Keith Moon. Was also one of the many there in 1969 who sang on Give Peace a Chance at Lennon's Bed-in in Montreal. Article will likely need some editing to pass though. TheCorriynial (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * He was a rare anti-war voice on television in the 1960s. His show was eventually cancelled for their opposition to the Vietnam War. Ahseaton (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Orange-tagged for short lede, and has a few missing citations. Curbon7 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Kernan
English actor and singer, death announced through his official Twitter account. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 15:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Television and Filmography sections are currently unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Review needed) RD: Lukas Enembe
Former Governor of Papua in Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article prose is quite poor. A couple spots need citations, but the article seems broadly fine for sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Plateau State massacres

 * Major escalation in Nigerian bandit conflict. Significant as farmer-herder and Christian-Muslim conflicts intensify in the Sahel. Very high death toll. Sheila1988 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Was about to nominate this. Conditional support due to quality. — Knightof  theswords  22:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to high quality Lukt64 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional support when it's no longer a stub. That is what is meant by quality, . We don't post stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until quality improves --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, Oppose on quality currently. AryKun (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, hold until quality improves This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough to me. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance at least. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ● Support as per above. Rager7 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality looks fine to me. No tags, everything cited to RSes. No longer a stub, now start class. Significance criteria easily met. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * admin comment Despite what some editors above say, this article is still a stub. Information that is contained in the lead is missing from the body. If someone invests half an hour into expansion and tidy up, this could be ready.  Schwede 66  17:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've managed to clean the article up decently, it should be gtg now. AryKun (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That there are only two sentences about the event, and 50% is just background, I feel more can be done here. --M asem (t) 22:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - this is clearly important enough to post & the article is of sufficient quality. X2023X (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Very significant. Article is in a decent shape and looks ready. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  04:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I lack familiarity with the conflict in question, so I do not want my suppositions to be taken too seriously, but is the use of the term "bandit" here compliant with WP:NPOV (particularly in the context of the main page)? I know it could just be a case of a false cognate tripping me up, but the term comes off as quite sensationalist to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The perpetrators of the Nigerian bandit conflict are usually referred to as bandits. X2023X (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Granger
Australian chef and food writer who operated restaurants across the world, including in Australia, Japan, South Korea and the UK


 * Support, after citations are added for TV shows. He was apparently very well known. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Bill Granger could use more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Christmas in Ukraine
The other main page sections are running Christmas-themed topics today and so it would be good for ITN to run a Christmas story too. This one seems reasonably historic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  This should have been nominated and posted when the reform was approved: either on 24 May 2023, when the Orthodox Church of Ukraine officially approved the date or on 28 July 2023 when President Zelensky signed the law confirming the new date, according to our article. The current blurb sounds as if the decision came out of the blue. Brandmeistertalk  10:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have been too crystal back then. And it's in the news now because it's happening now . Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb to make the context of the date change more clear. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb 2 for some clarity. Brandmeistertalk  11:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, and the article is of reasonable quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. But there are two Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, so I would probably omit the "following decision of the local Orthodox Church" part. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose while other sections can tailor content to holidays, news happens when it happens, and we should not just promote stories that we would not normally promote. Here, just the move of the date of the celebration is not sufficient to post. --M asem (t) 14:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the news, see and other outlets. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just being reported in the news is not sufficient for posting. The simple change of a holiday date would not be posted as ITN. M asem (t) 16:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, in a typically slow news cycle, this seems like a notable event that is in the news and the article is of sufficient quality. Would be nice if we could post this today. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per above. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability not a good idea to get a celebration of a holiday on ITN. Any country can have their first celebration at of a holiday. --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's Christmas! Kirill C1 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - In The News, relevant to public interest surrounding Christmas. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, this is historic and timely. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as old news It should've been nominated in July, when parliament approved the new law and Zelensky signed it. Now it's more suitable for DYK. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But there are always arguments "We should wait till it actually happens". Kirill C1 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as non-notable. Interesting, but not notable for ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Very interesting. Article looks good and the fact that it's celebrated in the country for the first time in over a century makes it very notable. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose - covered by ongoing, the split in the churches being a part of the war, and beyond that trivial  nableezy  - 23:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not that significant in the grand scheme of things, and also as noted above the change itself happened much earlier in the year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's getting some coverage but the quality of that coverage is not great. This is just part of a fairly complicated subject involving a major schism within Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine. There are at least three major groups claiming to be the legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine, two of which are recognized by differing autocephalous churches. And this doesn't count all of the splinter groups including so called True Orthodox etc or the UGCC which is aligned with the Roman Catholic Church. At least one of the main churches and all of the smaller Old Calendarist jurisdictions still use the Julian Calendar. To say that the religious situation in Ukraine is byzantine (pun intended) would be an understatement, and almost none of the mainstream press media sources have more than a slight clue. I'm Orthodox and routinely reach for the Tylenol whenever the subject of the church in Ukraine comes up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose All blurbs are misleading as they fail to illustrate the main point. Ukrainian authorities didn’t explicitly change the date of Christmas to 25 December but just made 7 January to be a regular working day (note that Ukraine is a secular state, so the authorities cannot interfere in the freedom of religion). That’s it. Some Ukrainians celebrate it on 25 December, while others do it on 7 January. It’s a matter of personal choice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems they did. The law signed by Zelensky did move the Christmas date from 7 January to 25 December, while the day before the Ukrainian Orthodox Church adopted the revised Julian calendar that currently coincides with the Gregorian calendar (meaning Christmas would be observed on 25 December). Brandmeistertalk   11:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I said. They shifted the non-working day from 7 January to 25 December. This means that religious people who observe Christmas on 7 January now need to take a day off from work to celebrate. Other than that, there's absolutely no significance in this change. I agree that Ukrainian Orthodox Church's decision to adopt the revised Julian calendar was much more notable, but it happened five months ago and it's nowhere mentioned in the suggested blurbs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is significant change, it signals cultural and religious shift towards West. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I come from a European NATO member state where the local Orthodox church, which is neither the Russian nor the Serbian, uses the Julian calendar and we observe Christmas on 7 January. I don’t see how that makes me less pro-Western or more pro-Russian. Our authorities have resolved this in a very elegant way—25 December is a non-working day for those adhering to a church that uses either the Gregorian or the revised Julian calendar, and 7 January is a non-working day for those adhering to a church that uses the Julian calendar.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting but a footnote in the ongoing war (from which this derives its significance). Gotitbro (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a PR stunt that has no long lasting significance compared to most other things in the war. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose What the other main page sections do has nothing to do with newsworthiness. I just don't see the significance of this story; government holidays get moved all the time, and if there's major religious significance to this it's quite unclear what that might be. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot imagine that this would have even been nominated if it had occured in any other eastern European nation. This nom is here because of the war. But it doesn't mention the war. It's a bit dishonest, and not hugely significant for the country. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above Shadow4dark (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo48 Elisecars727 (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Sandon
Ceramics historian. Seems basically complete. Blythwood (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good enough, but the DoB isn't sourced. It would be great if that could be fixed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Source now added (The Daily Telegraph obit, as above, although subscription only). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Properly sourced and meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced well. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vasilis Karras
Additional references if needed: Lifo, eKathimerini, Greek City Times or Greek Reporter. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose until article has been referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There are currently only two footnotes for 700 words of prose. The Discography section is completely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kamar de los Reyes
240D:1A:4B5:2800:209B:28DD:5A6D:5AED (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some unsourced info in career section and massive unsourced filmography. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section and much of the Career section are still unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ingrid Steeger
German actress and comedian. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:751B:E940:C692:8064 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article heading and her life and career section is way too short. It should be expanded more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 05:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently only 96 words of prose in this wikibio, followed by a string of unsourced bullet-points. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub.  Schwede 66  18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Libai
Israeli Minister of Justice from 1992 to 1996. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. All sourced, looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 05:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The date of birth is unreferenced.  Schwede 66  18:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now a footnote for his date and place of birth in the main prose. However, the Published works section is still unsourced. Not sure if we really need this section. --PFHLai (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All good now. I removed the published works section as I could not find material to support it. Thriley (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh Aynesworth
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready to go, pretty well sourced. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Chem Pluto
This is breaking news and so needs expansion but seems to be a significant escalation in the recent shipping attacks in that the target was a ship off the coast of India, sailing to a port in India and crewed by Indians. Many other nations seem to be involved. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until article quality improves, but support on notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds important, but unclear how important this actually is or if there will be any long term consequences. Don't see much news reporting about this attack besides "the tanker was hit by a drone". Haven't seen much in terms of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Seventh Iranian attack on commercial shipping since 2021" per the DW source, with no casualties and little other indication that this one is more significant than the others. Our article (currently miles away from WP:ITNUPDATE) certainly doesn't reflect any. —Cryptic 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Iran is denying that they made the attack and the Indian Navy is investigating. So, we must await developments but it's already significant in that the shipping route from the Persian Gulf to India is now threatened and there's no alternative route, like there is for the Red Sea. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When nobody gets hurt and very little is damaged, there's no need for an alternative route. Shipping folk know the dangers, by land, air or sea. All the other however many thousand ships need is a little luck and basic technical proficiency. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - A Liberian flagged, Japanese owned, Dutch operated tanker, with Indian and Vietnamese personnel, that was hit by an Iranian drone, with the Indian navy responding, and being considered related to a civil war in Yemen, itself related to a war in Israel and Palestine. Quite a mix, certainly a large international impact. 102.38.63.199 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait We need a clearer idea of exactly who did what, to whom, how bad it was, and whether it is likely to be seen as more serious than previous incidents in the area. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incident is unlikely to have any lasting significance that makes it stand out from all the others. Likely fails WP:EVENT. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Unless this has any lasting impact and consequences, it wouldn't make sense to post it. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing for the recent shipping attacks in general. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I waited to !vote to give some time for expansion, but no effort has been made to improve beyond a stub. Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem notable enough, and the article is quite small. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Polymorph, plus the incident seems to have no more lasting significance than any of the other recent attacks on shipping. The   Kip  08:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: M. M. Rajendran
Former Odisha Governor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Much of the article is unsourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 05:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bonda Mani
Renowned actor and comedian who had appeared in over 270 films. Abishe (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I've added a single citation needed tag, but apart from that, the article has no other issues. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 05:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Torben Ulrich
Father of Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:41C:5579:CBAA:C73C (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article has enough inline citations, although I am a bit concerned that one of the sources is tagged as being potentially unreliable. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That sentence with the unreliable source has been rewritten with a new source. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tennis results aren't sourced (I'd be tempted to remove them tbh). Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The tennis results have remained sourced, and time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ian Punnett
Weekend host of Coast to Coast AM. 173.71.151.40 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not Ready. The article is almost entirely unsourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite a few unreferenced paragraphs in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heike Matthiesen
German classical guitarist who played internationally, focused on works by woman composers including commissioned ones. The article was basically there, but needed references. Obits came late (27, 28) but perhaps we don't need to reflect that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is ready to be posted, in terms of quality (in case an admin wants a second opinion before posting). M asem (t) 19:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted - seems fine, and Masem has given it the seal of approval too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gurdev Singh Gill (physician)
Canadian physician. Death announced in WP:RS on this date. Article has shaped into a decent start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of editors’ eyes on this article / nomination. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This looks good, has RS. I like his photo. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this ready? BangJan1999 00:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article lists the names of non-notable children and grandchildren. Those names will have to be removed before this can be posted.  Schwede 66  01:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been settled. BangJan1999 03:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm marking it ready, but since I'm the only one to support I don't think it's proper for me to post. Though I will if noone else does. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks ready to me, sourcing is all there now and nothing stands out as a problem. M asem (t) 03:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks for handling this one. Ktin (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Imroz
Indian visual artist and poet. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced article. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the main paragraph isn't well sourced, and it's really poorly written to the point of incomprehensibility. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Garly Sojo
Venezuelan professional basketball player. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ryan Minor
– Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on quality, neutral on notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no assessment of notability, if he has an article he qualifies for RD. Stephen 01:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. 173.71.151.40 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Seymour

 * Support quality is clear. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rebekka Habermas
German historian based in Göttingen who taught also in Paris, Montreal and New York, topics gender and German colonialism in the 19th century, among others. The article was basically there but many detailed 2015 refs were gone, - replaced. Last day, sorry, there was Christmas. Yes, the daughter of the famous Habermas, and yes, there could be more about her ideas, - quite a personal obit by one of her students in FAZ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support short, sourced, acceptable. Grimes2 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - seems fine, and no opposition. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Robert Solow
Nobel prize winning economist. Thriley (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Dang it I was going to nominate! I've fixed a Citation Needed and removed an unnecessary section. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  - nobel economist, incredibly important to economics and the study of growth and development. Article looks alright to me. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs ref improvement still currently. - Indefensible (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There’s three paragraphs with no source. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for blurb Even then, the article is still unsourced in certain places, and depending on verifiability for those they may need a bit of rewriting. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The update has half a sentence of relevant prose that's not redundant to the proposed blurb, which is well short of what WP:ITNUPDATE requires, and it seems very unlikely to grow significantly. (Also, the nomination and above support predate the blurb suggestion.) —Cryptic 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the proposed photo is unreasonably red. It doesn't just happen to be the way he looked, I Googled him. It's a borderline unrealistic depiction. And yes, I know it's probably the best we're free to use. But sometimes our best isn't good enough, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose on RD and absolute oppose on blurb, he's definitely not blurb worthy. Personally I would eliminate death blurbs entirely. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Blurb he's not notable enough to have a blurb but weak support RD a cursory glance at the article tells me it looks alright, but the update left a bit to be desired. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but also oppose blurb on importance; I know it's not good form to say "I've never heard of him", but I studied economics as part of my degree ... and I've never heard of him. The article doesn't help either; it suggests that he was important but not field-changing. The sentence "He was ranked 23rd among economists on RePEc in terms of the strength of economists who have studied under him" doesn't suggest it either. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD Seems sufficient enough for RD but there's no way he deserves a blurb. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb on principle, weak oppose on quality I don't know much about economics but his accomplishments seem impressive and he does seem to be recognized as one of the great economists in world history. A few uncited paragraphs, though, so this article isn't ready to be posted. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Being a Nobel laureate does not make one blurb worthy. Not ready for RD either, more citations needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as usual. This death is not a significant event. JM (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Economic model was named after him. Four of his students received Nobel Prizes for their own career. Sounds a worthy person for the blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - per above, still needs a few cites so not ready yet and approaching staleness. (I'd also oppose a blurb; significant but not of the transformative status we would ask for a blurb) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cristina Pacheco
Mexican journalist, writer and television personality. ~ Tails   Wx  19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Cari Beauchamp
Hollywood historian and author. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:F197:564C:F666:3B20 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's close but there’s still some unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support quality is there and a couple unsourced sentences for uncontentious info isn't a barrier to posting, particularly when it comes to the lower-profile RD section. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So we can post articles with contentious information without a source? WP:ITNQUALITY says 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 [emphasis added] Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, I typo'd. I meant to write uncontentious info, of course. I've corrected that above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. Personally I consider some of the unsourced information contentious, but I can see why someone else wouldn't consider it contentious (hence why I weak opposed instead of a normal oppose). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Norma Barzman
Blacklisted Hollywood screenwriter. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:F197:564C:F666:3B20 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is very short and the filmography needs sources (at the very least the documentary section, the other works are in the prose). Also the filmography needs to be ordered chronologically per MOS:LOW but that’s a quick fix and minor style issue. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jim Ladd
Los Angeles radio DJ. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:F197:564C:F666:3B20 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Info: Its also worth noting he hosted Innerview, which was on many radio stations, and did compete with other radio shows of the 70s and 80s, like The Robert W. Morgan Special Of The Week and others like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:TheCorriynial (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many unsourced paragraphs and statements. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Prague shooting
Major shooting in a country that is otherwise relatively peaceful, though as the event is still very recent, there isn't a lot of info as of yet. -  LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Update According to The Guardian, the death count has been updated to at least 15, and the shooter was a student of Charles University. LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Tragic event. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for more details to come so that the article can reasonable explain what happened, but generally support, I would knclude thec30-some injuries in this as well as to show this was truly as "mass" shooting. --M asem (t) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Was planning to nominate this myself. But article needs more details as it is still stub-level. Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above JM (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Rare and tragic event. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - a death toll of 16 makes this worthy of ITN. Article sourcing looks good. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as it’s a rare and tragic event with tons of media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently expanded to post now. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is still in the early stages. Preferably wait a few more hours to let the article stabilise a bit. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support As others mentioned a tragic event. However, the article should receive more information as time goes on. Rager7 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per what others have mentioned, as this is indeed tragic. Article imo may still need a bit of expansion or copy editing. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good for something that's recent news. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think we should wait at least 24 hours for the situation to stabalize and details to emerge. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted with 16 casualties, but as per the article, 15 people have died, including the shooter, not 16. LucarioJapans (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The count of 16 includes the perpetrator's father who was killed in their home earlier in the day. I agree it's a bit misleading especially since that part wasn't in Prague. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the number to 15. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This morning they have corrected the death toll from the university to 13 + the perpetrator, so I have updated the blurb again. The count of 15 now includes the gunman's father which seems to have been added back following a discussion on WP:ERRORS earlier today. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Operation Prosperity Guardian

 * Support per nom. You beat me to it by four minutes...just deleted my own nomination.
 * An international military coalition being formed to act on this growing problem that has been in the news a lot recently, especially with traffic in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal plummeting as a result. Not long, but not really a stub anymore, and well-cited. JM (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, surprised this wasn't nominated 2 days ago  q w 3 r t y  03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The US, France, and the UK have been involved in the Yemeni Civil War for some time now. If anything, we should just put the war or it's current phase in Ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Too Soon?
 * I dont really know if this has a major impact, because those nations dont normally do a good job at keeping promises..... But, if they begin action, absolutely Support Lukt64 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support | Obviously significant, major int'l coverage This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The article currently describes nations, their ships and roughly where some of these ships are going. It even specifies who's in charge, to an extent. But as to what they're going to do, we learn nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but wait until it is known what this coalition will achieve. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This specific operation is a reaction to Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war which includes shipping attacks which have been taking place for weeks. The details of the operation are still evolving as some nations are temporising or keeping their involvement quiet.  It seems to be spillover from existing conflicts including 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Houthi–Saudi Arabian conflict, Houthi insurgency and the Shia–Sunni divide which has been going on for centuries.  See List of modern conflicts in the Middle East and note that many of them haven't ended.  As an encyclopedia, we should be giving the big picture not just a single limited and uncertain operation. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This specific operation is "in the news". The encyclopedia IS giving the big picture with all those articles you've just linked to. In The News gives the part that is "in the news". JM (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. BangJan1999 19:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to direct someone to ANI just for a disagreement over a blurb. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not why I directed them to ANI. This is why. Now try convincing me that there isn't a problem. BangJan1999 15:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of these votes I would disagree with, and a lot of them don't seem to be in the spirit of ITN, but does that really rise to ANI levels? Do you have specific diffs in mind? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, the user in question got topic banned from all deletion related activities a couple years ago for similar behaviour. ITN should not be any different in that regard. BangJan1999 21:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that makes a lot of sense and matches his behavior here. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support cautiously, once there is a bit more information about what this is all about (they really need to come up with better operation names, though. Prosperity Guardian? Enduring Freedom? Whatever happened to Operation Hats?) . Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait (leaning Support) This has the potential to become a flash point so it doesn't hurt to wait 24-48h for any major developments to surface. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support A military alliance of powerful countries against attacks concerning maritime commerce that are all over news should be moved ASAP Harvici 16:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the coalition achieves something concrete. The fact it was formed sounds promising, but there’s still nothing out of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: The operation is currently making rounds in the news. It's a current event as of the moment. Rager7 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm unconvinced that a load of boats floating around waiting for something to happen is ITN-worthy. I suspect this is more likely to be posted when they actually perform an operation. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support, but oppose for now The article needs to provide more context about the Houthi attacks that led to this operation. Also, the sentence in the “Reactions” section needs copy editing. Support The article looks good enough now & it’s easily important enough for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see much wrong with it. Bit more common to have "nothing to fear" from a looming vague armada than "about" it, and an acronym is only useful if used afterward (AAIOUIUA). Still though, yeah, more context is needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problems I saw earlier have been fixed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a significant geopolitical development in the Middle East. GWA88 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment at least 10 more countries have joined the coalition, bringing the total to more than 20, per the Current Events above. JM (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support meets all the bullet points outlined at WP:ITNSIGNIF. Article has potential for expansion, which isn't a barrier for ITN as it covers the topic and is well cited. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the present time. Preparing for a potential attack is not what would go into ITN, it would be if the attack (either direction) actually occurs. So if a full-scale attack actually happens, then yes, this would make sense, but right now, it is a defense move being used to try to secure stability that was weakened by the actions in Gaza. --M asem (t) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are attacks, and they are happening? Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are the background attacks. We didn't (really) consider posting them then and we aren't supposed to now. What (I think) Masem is waiting for lately is a full-scale "defensive" counterattack against the Houthis. Maybe it will coincide with a smaller-scale attack by them, as Gaza escalated, and we can post the tit and the tat together again. But for now, this new "side" of the hypothetical conflict is only retaliating with posture and suggestion. That's not counting any secret operations underway in Yemen right now inflicting untold numbers of casualties and damage that simply aren't "In The News", of course. And I'm not saying a lot of what goes on in that Gulf is intentionally kept silent, either, just that we can only blurb what the reliable sources want us to see and some of us aren't seeing enough destroyers destroying, just the usual repetitive rinkydink rockets. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing would be better-suited for a long-term operation, especially given its connection as spillover of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't ongoings usually come from blurbs that roll off despite still being ITN-worthy? JM (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Joseph Henry Smith
Minister for Defence of Ghana from 2009 to 2013. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * With 400+ words of prose, this start-class wikibio is long enough to qualify. The paragraph on his appointment as Minister for Defence of Ghana from 2009 to 2013 lacks sources. --PFHLai (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Norman Arthur
Governor of Edinburgh Castle, General Officer Commanding Scotland, from 1985 to 1988. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There are only 226 words of prose in this stubby wikibio. Anything else to write about this person? --PFHLai (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gunther Emmerlich

 * Support There was 2 unsourced awards but I've fixed that and the article looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Budde
240D:1A:4B5:2800:99A8:D91A:3913:D72B (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is almost entirely unsourced, with little in-text citations Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Support citations have been massively improved Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as per Unknown-Tree. Neutral on notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no notability requirement for RDs and recurring items. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing issues have been cleaned-up, besides one CN tag. The article seems quite thin on content. I understand that offensive guard is not a star position, but he was a five-time AFL all-star and was named to the AFL All-Time Team, so it seems like he was a prominent player; is there more that can be written abt his career besides rudimentary details? Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * would you guys be able to help with this? Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will try to soon if I have the time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Current size is 1891 readable bytes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't had any time to expand, but to be honest, I think ~1,900 bytes is sufficient; that's more than enough for, e.g., DYK. Everything is sourced. I'd say this is ready to go. Support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per BeanieFan11 <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump disqualified from ballot in Colorado
A presidential candidate being barred from running in a state is unusual, so I nominate it to be worth of discussion. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment He had absolutely no chance of winning Colorado. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had one question. Kevinishere15 has answered it above. That makes this not very newsworthy at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not as there's already an intent to file this to SCOTUS (the CO supreme court already has stayed the order to give time for the appeal to occur), and even there, even if upheld, may be a narrow ruling applied only to the state. --M asem (t) 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The US Supreme Court will get the final say on this. Besides, it's highly likely that Colorado's electoral votes will be won by the Democratic presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the above votes are somewhat factually incorrect (he’s also been DQed from the GOP primary, which he did have a chance of winning), Masem makes the best argument. The   Kip  06:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Decision not yet finalized, almost certainly going to SCOTUS. Curbon7 (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Close per WP:SNOW --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Pope Francis allows priests to bless same-sex couples
Sorry, the blurb I wrote is not very good. Official church doctrine has not been changed. Please suggest alternatives. 129.97.193.107 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on lack of a standalone article and or substantive update to existing articles. Support in principle. I was looking at this earlier today but AFAIK there is no article and what has been added to existing articles is woefully inadequate for ITN. But yeah, this is a minor earthquake in the Catholic Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is now a dedicated article. I have updated the links above to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping... @Philipnelson99, @Orbitalbuzzsaw, @The Kip, @Natg 19, @Alsoriano97, @Andrew Davidson@Joseph2302 -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Better article: 129.97.193.107 (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per @Ad Orientem but I'd go a little further to say that outside of the Catholic church it doesn't really mean much at all. I mean marriages can't even be blessed and unions aren't even allowed to be blessed at the same time as being conferred. It's an important step for the church but I don't think anything written yet on wiki is adequate enough for ITN. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still an oppose per @Pbritti. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning support obviously a significant development, but would like to see expansion before it goes to FP This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per AO, but likewise support on notability. Pretty significant ideological shift in one of the world's largest religions. The   Kip  05:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article appears to have been improved. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Is a monumental shift in the largest denomination of the largest world religion. Granted that if this directly legalized same-sex marriage, which it does not, that would be a stronger case for blurbing. I still support a blurb. While “Who am I to Judge” was a rhetorical shift, this is a (partial) policy shift which makes it more blurbable. Major denominations/religious organizations legalizing marriage equality are often notable enough for a blurb in my opinion.-TenorTwelve (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but also disagree that this is a monumental shift. If they allowed same-sex marriage it would be blurbable. But just "blessing" gay couples is not major imo. Natg 19 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article appears to have been expanded. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose. Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality yes, it is a very important step, close to the legalisation of same-sex marriage. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's a relevant, separate article created as target. The current article is orange tagged, and thus ineligible. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, but the article needs significant improvement --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. This is major development. This is the largest Christian confession. Never in history of Catholic Church there was such thing, it couldn't have been thought of 10 or 20 years ago. For religious reasons, this is very important. You can have a look what was previously talked on this matter. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I recently read an interesting article about a major schism in Methodism over such issues: The United Methodist Church Comes Apart. It turns out that money is at the root of that and so church politics is much like secular politics.  Meanwhile, The Economist suggests that A religious revolution is under way in the Middle East.  And it's Christmas once again and that's all over the news, as usual.  It all seems very Ongoing...  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which article do you have in mind for Christmas 2023 that gets updated daily? JM (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * …huh? The   Kip  21:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this per the ping, I'm still not persuaded that the new article makes a significant difference. The doctrinal position seems to be much the same as before as the article states plainly that "Fiducia supplicans does not provide for changes with respect to the institution of marriage in the Catholic Church."  And I'm not seeing much coverage in the media as compared with other religious issues such as the Methodist schism.  The only papers that are talking about Fiducia supplicans seem to be the specialist religious press like The Tablet. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per AO, dedicated article's quality and length surprisingly sufficient. Sufficient significance. JM (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Would support once the article has been expanded and covers the event in great detail/impact. Weak support Article appears to have been improved significantly, however I still feel it could be expanded further. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article is not very good yet. (And the implications are not yet very clear, so it will be hard to quickly improve the article.)
 * Jahaza (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article has been improved since I last saw it. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the outcome and impact are unclear. As other editors have mentioned, there don't seem to be many, if any, tangible effects. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a significant event but it's hard to find non-Catholic reporting that accurately describes it. For example, many claim Pope Francis issued it, even though he didn't. As written, it also can cause confusion: are the unions permitted to be blessed (most experts and the Vatican's official statement say no, but some RSs reported it as such). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support weve already posted small nations, borderline microstates, legalizing same sex marriage, and this is the closest were gonna get in a whie to the biggest church in the world doing te same, and this is how people vote ? baffling. support of course — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperquickly (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Example? From what I see we have been consistently opposing posting these types of news recently since many countries have already done this. Tube·of·Light 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Mauritius legalizing SSM was opposed because it wasn't a first. JM (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, im sorry but im not going to spend the next 30 minutes or so looking it up. I think (THINK), i've seen a list somewhere of all the times we've posted LGBTQ+ legalizations on the ITN. I also think (but not sure) the smallest/more irrelevant nation that we've posted was some island micronation and the logic there was that it was either first on the continent or first muslim nation, but you'd have to double check that
 * in general it feels like we've posted these sorts of announcements like 10+ times for countries. Catholicism is the largest singular faith in the world i think it deserves being posted, even if it's not legalizing marriage outright (we all know that's not going to happen not in the next 10-20+ years) Kasperquickly (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor can we forget that the SCOTUS decision Obergefell v. Hodges was posted because "it's America". A mistake. But I agree with you that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not the same in a Western country as it is in a Muslim or African country and this has to be taken into account here. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have been very odd to not blurb the legalization of gay marriage in the US considering how much it was "in the news" even outside of America. JM (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not the person you're replying to but the problem with that argument is that it creates a kind of threatmill where everyone is starting to question "why are we worse than americans" that leads to the ITN being filled with election results from micronations in the pacific ocean that have 20-30 thousand people population tops and are smaller than some of the buildings in Washington D.C. Kasperquickly (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "ITN being filled with election results from micronations in the pacific ocean that have 20-30 thousand people population" - and that's a problem why? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * «If you don't understand why that is a problem maybe you're a part of the said problem?» - unknown Kasperquickly (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker but instead looks to feature quality articles about topics that happen to be in the news, with an aim to avoid the Western and English baises that come from mainstream media. That is why we consider election results from most countries as appropriate news items. M asem (t) 19:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * they were asking you what the problem with that was . I don't really understand you either. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support now a separate article that is good enough quality has been created. It's been 23 years since the DDF have done a declaration, and this one is definitely in the news. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - but the article still needs work. I'm reasonably well-versed in this sort of thing, and I am finding the prose in the article heavy-going. Sentences like this need further revision to be clear: "All extramarital sexual relations are considered a sin by the Church and continue to be so, which is why it is asked for the affect that may exist between the two people of the same sex involved." As for the notability - (1) it's not marriage, and I don't think we're likely to see a shift there any time soon (2) but it is a truly huge organisation, with a reach on this topic that is virtually unparalleled (3) and similar moves are afoot elsewhere; last week saw the first officially sanctioned blessing of this kind in the Church of England (which like the RCC has been doing such things unofficially for a long time, but that's another story). So I do think it's appropriate for ITN, but my support is somewhat qualified. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article now clearly up to quality standards. Massive doctrinal change in a major world religion. We listed the church's new understanding of the death penalty as well. This clearly meets inclusion standards. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly support - Only one statement of its kind has been made in 23 years. Extensively notable news surrounding the Catholic Church and LGBT topics. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that it has its own article and is in good condition. Good work Ad Orientem. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Several of the original opposes were based on the lack of a separate article. We have no such requirement, only that there is a decent and well sourced update on an existing article of good quality. --M asem (t) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it should be added now. This is why we have "in the news" in the first place. The objections have been addressed. I don't have permissions however to do this myself. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Requesting a WP: SNOW add and close: As the large majority of objections (such as article quality) no longer apply. Does anyone want to add? StardustToStardust (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think SNOW means what you think it means. What applies here is NOTAVOTE. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I already changed my opposing vote to a supporting vote and it appears that the article's quality has improved a bit. I pinged the remaining "oppose on quality" users to see their feedback. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Major change in the church's doctrine, and article is now ready. Davey2116 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Iceland earthquakes and eruption
JM (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Leaning support, but let's see what happens and get an idea of the long-term significance first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's getting a lot of coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per AO. The   Kip  05:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per AO, I'd like to see what happens first.  q w 3 r t y  05:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We've already had weeks of waiting and now it's actually happening and is in the news with live coverage by major media like the BBC. The picture is especially spectacular and, as it seems to be free for us to use, we should do so.  If that particular picture doesn't work out, then we can expect many more soon.  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly the licensing of the image is currently being questioned. We can't commend the people of Commons just yet for the beautiful picture, though that might still change. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Commons discussion already indicated that the licensing formalities are being worked out. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the situation has been resolved as the Icelandic Meteorological Office has apparently itself clarified on its website that the images are free for use. JM (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once Commons picture situation is worked out. The article has been detailing this event for months and is beautifully detailed and in-depth. The current major, explosive event has a good section in the article. This looks like a very appropriate feature! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, great work to the Commons team for resolving the copyright question so quickly by reaching out to the copyright holders! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support very much in the news. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This event is literally why we have ITN. Article is of sufficient quality, and this event is being covered worldwide. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per kcmastrpc --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 16:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, seems very ready <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I acknowledge that the media file is nominated for deletion but the case looks pretty straightforward; the file has a free license.  Schwede 66  20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66 image caption should be Grindavík, not Grindavik. Note the í instead of i. JM (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Stephen fixed it JM (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Jishishan earthquake
Significant earthquake in China. Over a hundred dead and significant destruction as a result so i believe this can be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support That is... a lot of people. Very sad. Lukt64 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient quality, sufficient sourcing, sufficient length, sufficient significance. JM (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support | We don't do MINDEATHS but this is definitely qualifying This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is in good shape and significance is there. S5A-0043 Talk 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, quality is good enough and notability is well-established. Marking as ready. The   Kip  03:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: James McCaffrey

 * Support A rather iconic voice actor whose work in the Max Payne franchise is widely known. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Orange tagged. The filmography is completely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are only 261 words of prose in this stubby wikibio, and the filmography section is largely unsourced. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Halliwell

 * Support Short but adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum
JM (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready, missing any update south of the lead section right now. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support when ready per CE This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article's quality is poor as it fails to explain the matter well and there are incorrect tenses. There was a similar story last year and we didn't post that either. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the article leaves me confused on what the goals of the new constitution are and what changes it would have entailed compared to the 1980 constitution. "Contents" being a single line definitely doesn't help. Like above I think it needs expansion before it can be posted. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The referendum was rejected, so I don't see a reason to have this. Elisecars727 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we don't post things that don't change the status quo, unless it's ITNR. Or at least, we really shouldn't. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Had the far-right proposal been approved, I'd have supported. --Bedivere (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment just FYI we posted the failure of Australia's constitutional amendment referendum just 2 months ago; this is the failure of an entirely new constitution. JM (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We *really* shouldn't have posted that either, and we only did so because of our western bias. No need to compound the issue by posting this, imo. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that that posting was caused by western bias. Regardless, your last sentence depends on whether an editor concerned about "western bias" thinks the way to counter it is posting fewer Western articles or posting more non-Western articles. JM (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chile is a Western country. Rather, it's Anglo-speakers' bias. Bedivere (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment still applies, just replace "western" with "anglo" JM (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to derail this any further into WP:FORUM territory, but Latin America's position inside or outside the Western world is controversial and usually depends on the political view of the government. There's no right or wrong answer to this, just like there's no right or wrong answer on whether Poland is an Eastern European or Central European country. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality I think this deserves to be posted, but with virtually no detail in the "contents" section it's a long way off. The   Kip  05:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amp Fiddler
American funk musician. Brief but sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. The   Kip  07:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as well, seems like an interesting figure.
 * Dan Carkner (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maureen Flavin Sweeney
Irish postmistress that played an unexpected key role in the D-Day. Article seems in good condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Decent short article, rated C Class, pretty well referenced where it should be. RIP Josey Wales Parley 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Montross

 * Not Ready Multiple CN tags including unsourced paragraphs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose CN tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Will be missed. Kudos to Tails Wx for adding citations. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 06:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Serbian parliamentary election

 * Support article is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's a pleasure to see articles on elections of such quality as the one proposed here. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost there The first table under political parties is not clearly sourced. It may actually have a source somewhere but it isn't clear. Also the graph showing the opinion polls is not sourced. Otherwise, this looks like a pretty solid article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support article looks pretty good ❤History  Theorist❤  21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support well-written article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Otar Iosseliani
Georgian film director Otar Iosseliani dies at the age of 89. Known for movies such as Falling Leaves, Pastorale and Favourites of the Moon.Golan1911 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Golan1911
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose of the article is now entirely cited. Golan1911 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ::@Golan1911 Filmography section still has no sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Filmography needs citations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations were added to support each film Golan1911 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support well cited now after recent edits. Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks now good to go. Thanks Golan. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Alsoriano97, thanks everyone. Golan1911 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Hunt (sculptor)
African-American sculptor, in 2022 Obama said, "Richard Hunt is one of the greatest artists Chicago has ever produced", article is in great shape. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs more citations to third-party sites and some other cleanup. I'm working on it; could use more help. Funcrunch (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looked sufficient to me before you started to add citations, it is surely fine for RD now. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good enough for posting given the amount of citations for a length article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that don't end with a reference. Stephen 23:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe most if not all of the sourcing issues have now been resolved. Funcrunch (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. It's well past the threshold to post. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Colin Burgess (musician)
Original drummer of AC/DC. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:D0C2:F7DE:D183:5BE5 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any big issues in the article, I think this one can go ahead. LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural Support meets requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above JM (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not Quite Ready Several CN tags including an entirely unsourced paragraph. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags remaining, and time is running out. --PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/blurb: Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah
Head of state for three years, described as maintaining a "balanced" foreign policy and being a "consensus builder" domestically; also served as defence minister during the Gulf War. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Altblurb for once; an actual head of state with actual power dies while in office. But death needs to be cited in article. JM (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on the altblurb; if you're going to make the blurb about the succession and new leader, the picture should be of the new leader, especially since he is the first one referenced in that blurb. JM (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid any further confusion on this issue, I have now removed the image. I hope this solution is more helpful. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing the entire picture certainly solves the problem, since there is no longer anything to even be problematic in that case. JM (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll support the altblurb, as it's the closest to the one we used when Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah died. The article on Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah needs to be improved: to explain in as much detail as possible his role as defence minister during the Gulf War and his three years as Emir, sub-sections which I think should be separated. On the other hand, the article on the new Emir seems to be in good shape. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of a lack of updates. No significant writing on the death/funeral or on the political takeover. What are we featuring here exactly? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is still nearly one-line updates on both articles. This doesn't showcase quality writing or emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Personally I would suggest a pull. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. This is what death blurbs should be for: not someone "famous enough", but a case where the death itself is the impactful event. Also should maybe be ITN/R as a change of head of state? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 13:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an ITN/R (Emir is the position of power in Kuwait) --M asem (t) 15:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The update is absurdly insufficient. —Cryptic 14:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Page has now been updated with reliable sources reporting death.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As Succession, but Nawaf needn't be bolded nor spelled out in full after introducing his brother, whose last names are exactly as long. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unnecessary JM (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support succession blurb' since that's the relevant thing This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a second altblurb for consideration. I think a blurb for the Al-Sabah dynasty is a given; it's just a matter of how it should be phrased. Kurtis (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George McGinnis
240D:1A:4B5:2800:3D3F:2F18:15F5:E4B9 (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready for the usual reason . -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the article is fully referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good job with the updating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is now fully referenced. Appreciate your help, ! :) ~ Tails   Wx  16:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Autopsy of Matthew Perry
The autopsy results are all over the news globally. I myself was not familiar with the details of ketamine and so read through the coverage and explainers to find that it is now readily available in the US from hundreds of providers. We have several articles about all this and lots of people are, like me, now consulting them to find out more... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notabilty. Ketamine has caused many deaths globally; what makes this different? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If something causes lots of deaths then we should let people know about it. MtPenguinMonster wants to post the subway shunt but that doesn't seem so significant because nobody died. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MINIMUMDEATHS JM (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability - per @MtPenguinMonster. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely no chance this is notable enough for a blurb. JM (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Absolutely not. This is a footnote to a death story in which the death itself didn't get a blurb either. I cannot think why Andrew thinks this is an appropriate nomination. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antonio Negri
One of the greatest political philosophers of the 20th century. Will be missed. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support Article meets requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. RIP. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this article ready enough for ITN? BangJan1999 01:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Samer Abu Daqqa
VR talk 05:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Extremely short article with three of the four sections completely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wonder why people bother nominate articles like this when they are obviously nowhere even close to sufficient quality. I understand that sometimes people do improve them once nominated... but really? A stub that's 75% uncited? Actually, its a WP:BLP1E which was only created after his death, which is the 1 thing he's notable for. JM (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Keretsky grenade incident
Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now -- mostly on quality Perhaps this is a result of a fresh nomination, but there is no blurb specified and the article is a 2-sentence stub. On notability, the article has some promise but nobody is reported dead and the long-term impact is unclear. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a blurb. Hopefully that helps partially. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on both quality (see above) and notability - haven't seen this in the news at all other than the one BBC article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article is way too short and needs more details.Maxxies (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per above. S5A-0043 Talk 08:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment original blurb is extremely poor, added altblurb JM (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article is a stub. JM (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I doubt this should even be an article. No-one will remember this in a few weeks. Secretlondon (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Snowclose still a stub. Quality concerns are unlikely to be addressed. No votes of support. JM (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger McMurrin
American conductor, musician and pastor.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Kinda short, but looks adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Beijing train collision

 * Support on the basis of notability, but the article definitely needs improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, article quality needs improvement JM (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm working on rewriting parts on the accident section, though I express no opinions on ITN. S5A-0043 Talk 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment added ALT blurb as 423 had been released. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No-casualty collision. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Injuries are casualties JM (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Normally a transportation related accident with zero fatalities would get a quick 'no thanks' from me. But the number of injuries is so unusually high that I think this one should get posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - No casualties listed in the article, little coverage overall, the accident appears to have been non-fatal. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of casualties listed; also, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS JM (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No fatalities, and no real indication of longer-term significance. Wintry weather is known to cause accidents, even if 500+ hospitalized (most were out the next day) isn't common. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning support A major collision on one of the world's busiest metro systems is the story in-and-of-itself. Curbon7 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Major accident for the world's busiest metro system, as well as the unusual amount of injuries stemming from the collision.
 * TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not seeing continuing coverage and so WP:NEWSEVENT applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There actually is some coverage later on in Chinese press: . I still express no opinions though. S5A-0043 Talk 23:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major incident for this kind of transport. Article looks to be sufficiently improved. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew and DarkSide830. This appears to have been a rather unfortunate low-speed collision stemming from weather conditions and subsequently resulted in zero fatalities. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In my view a train accident with zero fatalities is not significant enough to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No fatalities, and the accident appears to be well understood (simply a weather issue). --M asem (t) 13:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel like this is "unusual weather causes accident, fortunately no one killed". Valereee (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Blakemore
240D:1A:4B5:2800:CC61:9046:6855:CB3D (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose several poorly sourced sections. Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too much unsourced content. Suonii180 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Emmanuelle Debever
240D:1A:4B5:2800:CC61:9046:6855:CB3D (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose several unsourced paragraphs. Polyamorph (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amerigo Thodé
Crispulop (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support Referencing looks pretty decent for a change. However, I am somewhat concerned about the sentence leading the section on his personal life reporting his son was arrested back in 2011. There is no report of a conviction. As he is not the subject of the article that raises a yellow flag in my mind re BLP. Unless he was convicted, I'd suggest removing that line. Otherwise I think the article meets our customary standards for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – I've removed that offending sentence.  Schwede 66  03:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Antonio Juliano
A quasi one-club man for Napoli and a former Italian senior international, who also helped his home-town club sign some of the players who contributed to their first national title, including none other than Diego Maradona. The article is pretty skeletal at the moment, but the aforementioned sources and the it.wiki version should help us improve the page. Oltrepier (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No info about his life before his career began, info on his career/impact he had could be expanded further and lead is a bit short. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Wojciech Łazarek

 * Oppose I feel that for someone who had an expansive career as both a player and manager, the article is quite lackluster in covering it. His career sections could be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mike Grgich
Mike Grgich was the wine maker at Chateau Montelena during the time when the 1973 Chardonnay vintage was entered into the Judgement of Paris (wine), where it famously won over many French wines, and which also brought the Napa Valley wines into the public attention. It is on the shorter side, and I don't expect it will make it, but its worth a shot. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Two cn tags/entirely unsourced paragraph. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kathy Chow
240D:1A:4B5:2800:60EF:E55C:FFDE:95AF (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both the prose and the filmography section need more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Daraban police station attack
Ainty Painty (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to its high death toll and sufficient article quality. X2023X (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing This seems to be one of many incidents in a long-running conflict which goes back about 20 years. We have pages such as Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023 and so the matter is better suited to Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Ongoing due to it having recently intensified? X2023X (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support although the massive box listing every attack in Pakistan since 2001 is unwieldy. Sheila1988 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not when collapsed. X2023X (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That box lists events going back to 2001 and has 24 events for this year. If we were to post all these events, then we'd be running them continuously.  This indicates that Ongoing is the best place for this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of them weren't nominated. X2023X (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose its clear from that timeline box that these attacks are routine now for the most part, and thus nothing specific about this one stands out over the others. As for ongoing, that line is not meant for long drawn out situations that only get a burst of coverage every month or so, but instead something that should be seeing near daily news coverage. That doesn't seem to be the case here either. --M asem (t) 23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are numerous serious wars ongoing throughout the world and this is one of them. Rather than cherry-picking just a few, we should put the List of ongoing armed conflicts into Ongoing.  The reader will then get an encyclopedic summary of them all, rather than being misled into thinking that there are only those few.  The list gets several updates every day as the casualties keep climbing. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That link would be great at Portal:Current Events, but keeping in mind that ITN covers topics in the news, many of those are mostly just noise compared to the ones that we do feature in ongoing, and don't have the frequency of updates we expect. M asem (t) 00:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The List of ongoing armed conflicts is informed by sources such as the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) which has an admirably academic and analytical approach. It analyses thousands of incidents every week and so is the sort of secondary source we should be using rather than the primary coverage of news reports of individual incidents.  It's broad encyclopedic coverage rather than cherrypicked incidents and conflicts. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like the venue to propose and discuss such a change is the talk page, not the candidates page. JM (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. One more attack in an ongoing long-lived conflict. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) COP 28
This is breaking news and so the article is now being updated with the details of the agreement. Note that this required unanimous approval of all countries – nearly 200 of them – and experience here shows how difficult it is to get unanimity. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurbing the entire event - It baffles me that this hasn't been put up yet, this event and the resulting controversies have constituted one of the biggest news stories of the week. We should put this up as soon as possible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We (more or less) agreed to wait till it ended, possibly in case something more interesting than the beginning happened. It didn't, in my opinion. But that's that, so Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this very much is in the news right now, it's the biggest story on most news sites. And article quality looks fine too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but blurb the entire event. That's what we've been waiting for. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 10:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose more big words, no real impact. Hundreds of politicians fly private jets to a known petro-state in a greenwashing exercise, this is nothing but one of many climate-related PR stunts. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support simply because we rarely post news related to climate change as a notable ongoing story in the very long term, but this is really a very vague conclusion with no direct action plans. Countries have been transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables over the past decade, and that trend is clearly evident if you take a look at charts depicting energy production/consumption. Also, as usual on topics related to climate change, the article is truly in great shape (this may be another reason to post more news on the topic in the future).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of notability and article quality, but I think the blurb could be improved. I propose the following altblurb: "The COP28 summit ends with a call to transition away from the use of fossil fuels.". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * feel free to add an altblurb to a nomination by the way; I have added this one on your behalf though. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You also edit-conflicted my version of the the original, which began with "After two weeks of controversy" and replaced "call" with "consensus". There was a lot of talk about such-and-such a member tut-tutting and all that, which the Table of Contents indicates remains prevalent, and who's the UN gonna call? Think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying "ends with a call" seems too vague about who is calling who. As I understand it, the actual agreement document is the "First Global Stocktake" and its key section is the "Guidance and way forward".  The parties have signed up to this and that's all the attending nations.  Getting this overall agreement is the key point. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be talking to me, but mine ends in a "consensus". Maybe we're agreeing. Changing "call" to "agreement" instead is certainly doable, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment An yearly conference for implement adjustments to a 1990s treaty; does not appear to be of much note to me especially when we have already posted the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abcmaxx and Gotitbro. This COP thing happens ever year, it's not a rare and unexpected event; and every year it's the same deal - lots of grandstanding which leads to little or no action to change anything. There's no reason to think that will change this year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It gives people a glimmer of hope that things might change/return to normal. That's what the end of the year is generally all about. But you're right, in the pragmatic sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because in the news for so many countries Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose If it is simply a call and not a binding resolution (eg something like the Paris Agreement) then this is unfortunately just hot air, similar to how most of the recent COPs have ended. --M asem (t) 13:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Great work on building this article, it goes into a lot of detail! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, both because the quality of the article and the notability of it (doesn't matter if we like the outcome or not). Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support because the article looks good and there is widespread coverage, but I agree with Masem's point about a lack of anything binding ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  with regret. Basically an annual photo-op for wealthy and powerful people who get together (after flying in on their private jets) and preach about the evils of global warming while debating the wording of a nonbinding statement. If someone can convince me that something substantive actually came of this, I will happily reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving to Neutral per the cogent point by . -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POV. Personal opinions aside, this is definitely In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Quality NEW article, above-the-fold everywhere. Matches our purpose to a tee. The opposes seem to be introducing a qualifier that does not exist. The summit and its announcement are making news; doubts about their sincerity don't change that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per consensus above. I might suggest that y'all discuss an addition to the blurb that addresses the criticism of the agreement (the second part of this sentence: "The global pact was the first in the history of COP summits to explicitly mention the necessity to shift away from every type of fossil fuels, but still received widespread criticism due to the decision not to include a clear commitment to neither fossil fuel phase-out or phase-down.") Without anything discussed above I didn't feel comfortable adding it myself. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)'
 * Note that the use of "COP28" in this blurb is being discussed over at WP:ERRORS. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm down for making the second word "controversial". Began that way and ended like it. The agreement itself, of course, was a perfectly acceptable compromise (whatever it means to the real world). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk Given that we've even covered some of these controversies on the Signpost, I would definitely co-sign it... Oltrepier (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like that would border on editorializing, kinda like how we tend to avoid calling elections illegitimate. The readers can see this themselves from the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously, I come from a biased spot, since I helped update the article, but I think mentioning the fact that the COP28's final deal is the first in the summit's history to explicitly mention every kind of fossil fuels would be worth the extra work. If we have to save at least one thing from a clearly underwhelming conference — with conflicts of interest and blunders that dangerously undermined the very meaning and scope of COPs — then let's give this bit of news a shot. Oltrepier (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I struggle to understand the meaningful significance of it when the entire statement is known to be nonbinding and there have been valid questions raised regarding the sincerity or motives of those wealthy suits attending. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @WaltCip True, but considering that people had struggled to even include the explicit mention of coal during the negotiations at the COP26, this is still an improvement (albeit a slight one)... Oltrepier (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andre Braugher
-- Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oh god, this is how I find out??? RIP to a personal favorite, albeit the article’s orange-tagged. The   Kip  01:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * i know im heartbroken :( Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that article’s updated. This one hurts. The   Kip  19:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose You know what I'm going to say: referencing. Personally, I also think it's got very weak coverage of his career, which is disappointing. But that doesn't hold RDs back, this oppose is only valid while article is not suitably referenced. Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready for the usual reason. Agree with Kip's sentiment. RD has been getting damned depressing of late. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The awards and nominations table still needs some work. But much progress has been made. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Well done to everyone who helped with the referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a bunch of sources to career section (now fully sourced other than Olympic Games narration claim, which I can't find) and Filmography. There seems to be an edit war over the Awards section, which I haven't touched.Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation to the Olympic Games claim (Elite Daily), hopefully it's good enough. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just added a couple more sources for statements missing citations in the Career section that I overlooked. Funcrunch (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm working to add sources for the Awards and Nominations section. If anyone can help that'd be great. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when ready RIP Captain This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT I've added two subtantial references, i.e. large obituaries.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support appears ready now. microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the updates made by Spinixster and Funcrunch. There's probably more detail that could be added on his later career, but nothing that's holding it back from RD.
 * --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK


 * Support blurb. Yeah, I know it won't happen, but... NINE-NINE! BD2412  T 16:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't mind posting things with a few citation neededs, but the orange tag in Andre Braugher is a bit too much. I might advise integrating the most important awards into the prose and removing the table, at least for now. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * :Agreed. Still too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't able to post a comment/cry for help before, but I wasn't able to find references for earlier NAACP Image Awards as well as some others. It might be because they're too old/defunct. I'd appreciate some help! Spinixster   (chat!)  00:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, article is well sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Title and name is wrong. I just watched 10,000 Black Men Named George on YouTube and he is billed as "André Braugher." Therefore, title of the article needs to be changed.  We owe it to him to get his name right.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Though he is sometimes billed that way, the preponderance of reliable sources spell his first name without an accent mark. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Article is good enough. – bradv  01:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Cited rest of NAACP Image Awards so removed MCN tag, only one tiny CN left. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Polish PM

 * Support altblurb, oppose blurb Morawiecki was just desperately holding onto power, he wasn't ousted in the traditional way. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. I propose a simpler version of the altblurb: "Donald Tusk becomes Prime Minister of Poland after the 2023 Polish parliamentary election" --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We already blurbed the election months ago. What's new is the votes in the Sejm yesterday and they are what's being reported now. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We did not blurb it in the end as no government was formed; Morawiecki lied about having a majority and found a loophole to delay handing over power. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We did blurb it. The blurb was "Parties opposing the ruling United Right win a combined majority of seats in the Polish general election". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added MtPenguinMonster's suggestion as altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The election was blurbed when it happened. It's stale now. What we're nominating here is the new PM. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's not stale is it as the consequences only came in force today.Abcmaxx (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Third Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki" would be a sensible thing to link in this blurb, though it's rather stubby. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this: this wasn't a legitimate government, only an underhanded loophole. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R, what else can be said? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the quality of the article and its update is particularly important, and people are currently discussing how to format the blurb exactly.
 * Support alt2 – Article update looks good. I'm not sure to which degree a mention of the previous caretaker government is appropriate, but it's atypical to mention the old setup in the blurb for the new. Alt2 seems fine. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The old administration still holds some of the levers of power. The BBC explains that "Mr Duda's decision to nominate Mr Morawiecki to form a government without any hope of winning a vote of confidence indicates that the president, who will be in office until 2025, intends to stymie Mr Tusk's plans.  To become law, bills approved by parliament need to be signed by Mr Duda, who can veto them. Mr Tusk's coalition does not have enough MPs to override a presidential veto."  So, there may be a gridlock as often happens in the US. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was that the old administration should have ended 15 October, not form a new 2 month administration that had no hope of keeping power on basis of lie that they will form a majority. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb - articles look well sourced, and having all three articles bolded seemes excessive ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2. No need to mention Moravecki. It should be wholly about Tusk. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait He has been nominated and confirmed by the Sejm but has not yet taken office and will not be sworn in until 12/13. See for some WP:RS to that effect. Here is the official statement released by President Duda's office stating that he accepted Morawiecki's resignation but that Morawiecki will continue to be acting PM until then. This is definitely news-worthy but we need to wait until tomorrow when he takes office.  Ppt91    talk   19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As this is marked as an ITN/R item, probably because it's a change of a head of government, we should mention that Tusk succeeds Morwaiecki.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: i don't think tusk is the prime minister yet. most of the sources mentioned above state that he was elected prime minister, so perhaps stating that tusk is elected prime minister (instead of becomes prime minister) would be more appropriate.  our article on tusk states that he is expected to assume office on wednesday, and our article on morawiecki still lists morawiecki as prime minister.  the official statement that Ppt91 linked (translation) mentions that morawiecki's cabinet is expected to continue to operate until another cabinet is appointed.  in addition, the date we list as the start of morawiecki's first term is the date he was sworn in (source), not the date three days earlier when president duda designated him as the new prime minister after morawiecki's predecessor beata szydło resigned (source).  dying (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * note: this blurb has been independently raised at wp:errors here[]. dying (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull - how is this different than the posting of the election? I don't think this is ITNR when the election is responsible for this change. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The election was not decisive and it was not immediately clear who would form the next government. As such this is ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted this because it’s a change of a head of government, which wasn’t clear at the time when the election results came in as the ruling party won. However, we should mention the succession as we did when Rishi Sunak suceeded Liz Truss in October 2022.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Note that Tusk was sworn in as PM early this morning. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note – On the frontpage, Prime Minister of Poland is bolded, but this article did not see a significant update. I believe only Donald Tusk should be bolded here. Apologies for not paying attention during the !votes. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zahara (South African musician)
240D:1A:4B5:2800:E07F:851:63C7:C037 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Was thinking about nominating her, but article not ready yet. Needs more sources for early life, and also copyediting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octopusplushie (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The early life section is completely uncited, and there is an additional CN tag in the following section. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems significant work has been done to get this up to RD quality. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the improvements to the article are significant - this is ready to post imo. – bradv  01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I've referenced the "Early Life" section, added a few more citations to the following section, and also did a bit of copy-editing. Looks good to go now. ~ Tails   Wx  01:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @The ed17, it has not been posted, as I do not see it appearing in Template:In the news nor the "In the news" section of the Main Page. ~ Tails   Wx  14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping —I posted the posted in the wrong section. I've put this one up now. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Renée (writer)
Still working on this one and there are still some citations missing, which I'll get to tomorrow, but want to make sure it's on the list (and draw it to the attention of others who may wish to improve it). I'll update here once I think it's fully sourced. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support This article relies a bit too much on direct quotes in my opinion (see WP:OQ) and could benefit from paraphrasing. I think that once that's done, this'll be suitable LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LynxesDesmond: thanks! This is something I'm very susceptible to (I always feel like the quotation says it really well, so my instinct is not to paraphrase, which means I absolutely overuse them). I've tried to paraphrase a few more of the quotes while keeping those that seem particularly useful/pertinent, e.g. I really like the Lorae Parry quote.
 * (Also just noting, further to my nomination comment, I think it's largely fully sourced now so from my perspective ready to go, although I'm going to keep working on it.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 04:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shirley Anne Field
Needs a lot of work to cover the cn tags, but will be a worthwhile exercise. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The prose is longer enough but there are a handful of {cn} tags. Filmography is largely unsourced.  Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gao Yaojie

 * Oppose on quality, there is unsourced information and a tag for possible original research. Suonii180 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just finished going through and updating/expanding the article with reliable sources, so the article may be of appropriate quality now. ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * happy to support it now as most of the issues have been dealt with although it would be better if sources could be found for the citation needed tags. I've was unable to find sources for them but there could be non-English ones that I've missed. Suonii180 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Suonii180 @ForsythiaJo I've attempted to make a few more improvements, although it's not that simple to verify all the statements...
 * On a side note, the article might need copy-editing from an expert pair of eyes. Oltrepier (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support following improvements, although there are still a few unsourced quotes here and there. Oltrepier (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. Nice work. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rehmat Shah Afridi
Ainty Painty (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I can't really comment on the sourcing as it's mostly in Urdu, the article is extremely short. The   Kip  10:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is very short, there are few sources, I don't think we can add this. Manumaker08 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stubby wikibio with only 188 words of prose. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mort Engelberg
Thriley (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A stubby wikibio with only 212 words of prose. Filmography has no sources. Time is running out. --PFHLai (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Wycheck
Former NFL tight end. Article is orange-tagged and needs a lot of work. The  Kip  08:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose since the article isn't frontpage ready This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I've worked on the article and added numerous sources and removed the tags, only one citation needed tag remains, but otherwise should be good to go for posting. RIP to an NFL tight end famous for the Music City Miracle. Courtesy ping . ~ Tails   Wx  03:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Abstain since I don't know anything about the topic This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per the excellent referencing work by Tails Wx. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 08:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julian Carroll
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Looks pretty good and notable enough. Would like to see more on death/legacy - For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Expanded his death section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Two CN tags but on balance adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited the two CN tags. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, CN tags have been fixed and everything else looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 NBA In-Season Tournament
Inaugural In-Season Tournament has been a great success and very exciting to watch. Major development in NBA history. Much more popular and significant than many of the sporting events posted here on ITN. LocoTacoFever (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose so the NBA is playing a knockout tourney with itself? I don't think that's how knockout tournaments work. It's not like anyone thinks this is as important as the actual championship, anyway, so it's more or less just a marketing gimmick and not important enough for ITN. AryKun (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we’ve never posted sub-league title achievements (ex. FA Cup in English soccer, etc). Also gonna echo AryKun’s rationale. The   Kip  09:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The NBA is globally popular and ITNR, but not its knockout tourney. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The last thing ITN needs is more sports... Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have no way of knowing if this has any staying power or actual legacy-related significance. As it stands now, it’s little more than a regular season marketing ploy. We might as well have notices for which team has the best record in any given calendar month. RPH (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not as signifigant as the end of season tournement. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Artificial Intelligence Act
Parliamentary approval is required but the reports indicate that this will be a formality now that policy-makers have agreed the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability given the increasing importance of AI regulations, although I'd change the wording of the blurb to make the relevance of the event more clear. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now since it's still a long way from actually being promulgated. Suggest reconvening when it gets through Parliament + Council This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Act has already been in preparation since 2021. Per this announcement, this seems to mark agreement between the Council and Parliament.  All that remains is some technical  wordsmithing, translation and formal approval. The trouble with waiting for the formalities is that they will take weeks and may then not attract the same level of news coverage.  It's in the news now . Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not yet passed, only an agreement on the major tenets that it will contain. Once it passes, then we can talk ITN. --M asem (t) 22:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait to see if it passes JM (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait as per JM --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. But support in principle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support based on notability. James Tamim 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If it passes, then support, but for now Wait - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose if everything is done except for finalizing the language and passing the law, then nothing is done. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until passage per above NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a more neutrally worded altblurb (POV language like "high and unacceptable risk levels" has no place in Wikipedia, much less ITN). A support if bill passes. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 05:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe something like "deemed to be high risk" PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per all above. The   Kip  06:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait as per above. If it passes, it will be definitely worth adding.
 * Manumaker08 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose until it passes. Suonii180 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Sports salary world record
Major league baseball all-rounder (first one in 1 century) will get $0.7 billion in money guaranteed even if he God forbids gets a career-ending asteroid injury before his first game. No connection to North America before joining Earth's strongest baseball league at age 23 so also has that arousing not just USA aspect. Doesn't beat Messi in per year money though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sports, petty record. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meh. In 1930 the US was scandalized when Babe Ruth got a two year contract for $80,000 per annum. That was $5,000 more than the salary of President Hoover. When asked why he thought he deserved more money than the president, Ruth replied "I had a better season." -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the article is not updated to include this contract, as he only announced that he is agreeing to the deal, but it is not yet signed as the typical dotting-the-i's and crossing-the-t's have to be completed first. There is debate about whether or not it should be included that he agreed to the deal, which could fall through in the worst case scenario. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's an incremental record really, and the numbers tend to go up through history anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per year money seems like it should matter more, no? Plus, the way the Saudis are going, I wouldn't be surprised if they offer Haaland or someone a personal billion-dollar boondoggle in the desert. AryKun (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Solomon
West Indies batsman known for his role in first ever tied test match. Abishe (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clyde Butts
West Indies spinner who made it into a squad when the team was largely relying upon seam attack. Abishe (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good enough. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

FDA approves first CRISPR-created sickle-cell drug
This is a major development in sickle-cell treatment and CRISPR technology. 75.81.94.213 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The article tells us "It was approved in the United Kingdom...in November 2023." This is obviously before the US approval, so we should have posted THAT news, not the FDA approval. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And sadly, no one really developed any article at that time, despite being well-covered then. M asem (t) 01:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did submit it as a blurb back then, but it didn't go through. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo. The   Kip  01:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Support Yeah, this is stale. We blew it. But honestly, this is significant enough that I think we should post it anyway. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why this US one rather than last month's actual first? What makes this one in particular more significant, other than being from the US? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that's why Ad stated it was an IAR support. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the issue, IAR isn't a blanket excuse to introduce bias or overcome consensus just because you don't like it. If you feel it would be more productive to ignore consensus rules, you should really be ready to justify it, and just saying "IAR" to handwave away issues of US-centrism in doesn't cut it. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is all about America to you. But to me the story is the development and approval of the first effective treatment for a disease that afflicts more than four million people globally and reduces life expectancy in the developed world to between 40-60 years. Yes, I think that is a good reason for setting aside our customary guidelines when we overlooked the earlier approval in the UK. Your disagreement is duly noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was the one to submit the blurb for the first approval of the treatment last month. No need for passive-aggressive personal attacks, the issue is that you ignored last month's blurb but care about this one that happens in the US. Which, whether you like it or not, is US bias. This blurb isn't about the four million people affected globally, it is about America only. Maybe rephrasing the blurb to emphasize the advance itself rather than its US-specific approval would help? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 04:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality . Leaning in favor if a "support" along the lines of Ad Orientem's, which goes against my general evaluation process, but either way the article is very thin at the moment and can use to be expanded. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Switching to support due to quality improvements. Would like a blurb that notes the use of CRISPR though. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a new alt-blurb to this end. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to the fact it was previously approved by the MHRA in November. If this were to be published as an ITN item now, it would be effectively saying that the FDA approval is more important than FDA approval. As a secondary matter, I don't believe the UK approval itself was worthy of a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you think the UK approval would've been worthy of a blurb? (Assuming the article had been in this state then) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work WP:MEDRS emphasises the importance of broad coverage such as systematic reviews but this story seems quite narrow and selective. For a better survey of CRISPR developments in 2023, see Pharmaceutical Technology.  That was published back in January and so I'm not sure this is a good fit for ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, it's estimated that about 15,000 people have the disease in the UK, versus 100,000 in the US.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Already happened in the UK last month, which was more newsworthy as it was the actual first. Here it's just the FDA approving a drug already in use in other countries, so not much of "news" except if we're going to be explicitly US-centric. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We missed our chance when we didn't post the UK approving it. It is what it is. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * support sorry posting. From phone from ip but this is too important a news to ignor, like adoriemtam has said we should port it 5.44.170.53 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – I do not think "we missed our chance" is a healthy position. We always run into things gradually growing anyway, and god would it be a breath of fresh air to have a medicine story on for once. We wrote the article now and we're lucky that there's a relevant context to feature it in. We should be presenting our writer's work and show that Wikipedia is a dynamic place, as per ITN goals. The article looks good and it would be a shame if it passes people by because it was approved in a different context by a different country one month ago as well. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would like to add: waiting for a second government to approve of a medicine could easily be seen as us just being careful and waiting things out. We didn't do it on purpose, but we now have an extra datapoint to confirm widespread adoption of this. Within science, it's extremely helpful to set that as precedent. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, with better blurb I have added an altblurb2, which lists both countries that have approved this, in chronological order, giving no apparent priority to either. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes it appear (what I too was lead to believe) to be a case of simultaneous approval, which is clearly not what has happened here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I phrased it as "alongside" in alt1, though I think either of these blurbs are alright for making clear that the new medicine is getting widespread adoption, which is the main story for us as the encyclopedia. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Guatemalan general election
Updated for now, although mostly in the lead. Depending on how the situation unfolds, we could create 2023 Guatemalan coup d'état later down the line and adding it to the blurb. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 00:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal is disputing/refusing the AG’s claims and asserting the transfer of power will go forward as planned. Right now, it’s just the (notoriously corrupt) AG making accusations with no other official backing. The   Kip  01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait same rationale per above but I wouldn't oppose. If there are further developments that we should blurb since this seems to be a significant development. Side note, there's been a protracted period of unrest involving post-election developments in Guatemala so I think we should probably redirect the primary article elsewhere should that article exist. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait. Can't post right now because of the rationale provided by Kip, though I would wait on account of this potentially becoming a bigger crisis. Going "oppose/wait" rather then normal "wait" because a formal invalidation of results would realistically be it's own nom independent of this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per Kip PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing This is the common outcome that the transfer of power to a new government is uncertain and takes some time. I checked what we did the first time around and the nomination was posted as "Bernardo Arévalo is elected as president of Guatemala." but this was removed after just one day.  If we get a different final result then we should post an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait/Support Election results and attempted coups are notable, but we should wait for further developments before posting. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The Attorney General's Office of Guatemala, a corruption-fed country, doing what it is supposed to do. --Bedivere (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - we really need to make an article covering the post 2023 election attempts by Porras to get rid of the election result. River10000 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Itziar Castro
Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Filmography section needs more sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ryan O'Neal
Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready but not in dreadful shape. The usual issue. Barry Lyndon is one of the greatest movies most people have never seen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. Oh god, oh man, RIP. The   Kip  01:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've done some work and there's one cn tag left in the prose but the filmography is still orange tagged and awards and nominations section and amateur boxing record sections need sources. I might work on it later if I have the time. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Leelavathi
Veteran Kannada actress. Srf123 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significant sourcing improvement is required. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guy Stern
Engineerchange (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've resolved the majority, but some still remain. A few of them appear to be narrative based, so they can probably be axed since they were sourced from his autobiography or interviews.--Engineerchange (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed uncited passages (to talk page) after additional searches. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Rogow
Engineerchange (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The article is really short. Should be expanded. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article meets RD standards now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Can this be expanded with details of his early life, education, and how he got into television? At 152 words, it is far too short to be considered holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment added additional details throughout and expanded article. --Engineerchange (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Susan Catania
Former member of the Illinois House of Representatives from 1973 to 1983, known for her advocacy for women's rights issues and feminist causes. She died on November 27, 2023, but her death wasn't announced to the public until her daughter published an article on December 7, which was re-shared by Capitol Fax. Edge3 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a Good Article. Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vera Molnár
Hungarian-French media artist. Jmanlucas (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support Article is generally good quality, but could be expanded upon. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article isn't terrible, but not great either. I wouldn't be opposed to it being added but the article could use more info.
 * Manumaker08 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support No showstopping problems, though the article could certainly be improved. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) The Game Awards 2023
Was also posted in both 2021 and 2022. Mlb96 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per existing precedent. Well deserved win for BG3 This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Per above. Didn't expect that at all, thought TotK would win PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually fully anticipated BG3 being named Game of the Year by multiple publications. The other two main contenders for the award&mdash;TotK and RE4R&mdash;are essentially enhanced recreations of previous GOTY winners. BG3 is an entirely new game. Kurtis (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True, I'm glad Balders Gate won. While TotK was good, it did feel a bit too similar to BotW PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This was described as "one long commercial" and so policy WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. There are always lots of trade shows, product launches and releases.  For example, we have recently had the release of the Tesla Cybertruck and The Fashion Awards.  And there are always new movies being released, getting lots of reviews and readers.  But ITN doesn't cover these because they are too numerous and commercial.  Videogames are not exceptional or significant and Balder's Gate 3 is yet another uninspired and derivative version of D&D which itself ripped off the actual classics like Tolkien. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * is blatantly incorrect; per, VG revenue surpasses the movie and music industries by 4 and 3 times, respectively, using 2019 numbers. It is by all means a major pillar of the broader entertainment industry. Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The same logic would apply to the Oscars, the Emmys, etc.
 * Now I will be first in line to complain that the show itself was one long ad, but the process and selection of the awards follows similar routes as with those others, in that the voting members is primarily from leading figures in both development and coverage of video games, and thus should not be seen itself as commercial any more than the Oscars are. M asem (t) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Balder's Gate 3 is yet another uninspired and derivative version of D&D which itself ripped off the actual classics like Tolkien. I could perhaps accept the rest of your argument as being somewhat valid regarding WP:NOTPROMO, but that last assertion there (which itself is quite the violation of WP:NOTFORUM) tips the scales firmly into "old man yells at cloud" territory, and I now question whether or not you intended this argument as anything other than contrarian. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. BangJan1999 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, someone open the case, because I don’t have the time to do it myself. This space will be considerably better once a certain disruptor is removed from it. The   Kip  20:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of arguments on ITN, and none of them manages to surpass "I think this video game is unoriginal" for sheer policy compliance. AryKun (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per precedent. PolarManne (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Articles are both looking good. Baldur's Gate's reception section could probably use more work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good article and most recognised awards for gaming Shadow4dark (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per precedent, despite how dreadfully boring it was.
 * Manumaker08 (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, trade show award basically, without the coverage of the other trade show awards we do cover like the Emmy's, Oscars, BAFTA and so on.  nableezy  - 15:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has the coverage outside of normal video game sources, and it is absolutely wrong to call it, or the Oscars, Emmys or others as a trade show. --M asem (t) 15:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely wrong to call my comment absolutely wrong. See how bald assertion works?  nableezy  - 15:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Things like the Oscars, Emmys, etc are factually not trade shows. You can call all their ceremonies overtly commercial (and as I've said above, this show this year dips far too much into that), but the awards themselves have an actual process for selection, review, voting, and the like that are not functions of trade shows, and that's what the focus is of this blurb is the actual awards, not the mess of advertising around it. M asem (t) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The awards are the advertising.  nableezy  - 15:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the case of The Game Awards, that couldn't be further from the truth: the awards are the only breathing room away from advertising. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 04:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added more coverage from mainstream media sources. Mlb96 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted per consensus above. I discounted Andrew's argument as they did not demonstrate how anything in this situation falls under the actual text of WP:NOTPROMOTION (particularly in #5 "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations"), nor did they satisfy WP:ITNATA point #2 and #4. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support This has been posted multiple times in years past.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting oppose. This story is not notable; mainstream news sources are not covering it. I checked the home pages of NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC: none of them mention this story. BluestGreen (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Not comparable to the Oscars and much more similar to a trade show award. The depth of the coverage here does not suggest any broader significance and the awards are really just promotional. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, who supported with comparison to the Oscars? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull These award shows are merely advertising and promotion, and that goes for Emmy's, Oscars, etc. Precedent aside, these events just don't seem ITN-worthy any longer. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasoning I provide above. Has received plenty of "mainstream" coverage, as indicated by the sources provided by nom. Perhaps not as physically large or formal as the Oscars, but still significant in its own scope. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also note that are 7 (!!) WP:ITNR listings for film awards, while this is the only video game event that is routinely posted (not yet ITNR), despite the game industry far outpacing the film industry in reach and revenue. Why should we be WP:SYSTEMICly biased in favor of films? Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove from ITN/R all of them save for the Oscars, and then remove The Game Awards twice. Omnifalcon (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! Game Awards 2023!! Oscars 2023!! Emmys 2023!! BAFTAs 2023 ! NY Times ! AP ! Reuters !The Guardian
 * || ||  ||
 * N/A || ||  ||
 * N/A || ||  ||
 * N/A || 118 results in their Oscars 2023 hub ||||25 results in their BAFTAs 2023 hub
 * }
 * These other awards receive international mainstream coverage to a much higher degree than the Game Awards.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in ITNCRIT says that an event needs to be massively covered, just covered in independent news sources. Otherwise, many of the disaster articles and election results we should fail for the same reason. The mass of coverage may be a reason to deny ITNR for the Game Awards at this point, but not from general ITN posting. M asem (t) 01:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support per all above. The   Kip  20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose — Per Nableezy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose: these video game awards are not on the same level of magnitude as the EGOT awards. Most major publications such as The New York Times, AP, BBC have only one short article each compared to the EGOT awards that can get multiple different articles from these major publications. I mean if the Game Awards were as mainstream as the other film awards, you would think they would at least be the main articles on the arts or lifestyle or culture sections of those publications but most of the time they're not. RTÉ and Al Jazeera have actual topic tags for the Oscars. Both outlets also have 0 mention of the Game Awards. They are not yet at the same level.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I think it should also be noted that the article quality here is rather good, and comprehensively sourced. Kafoxe (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The Gaming Awards are not really relevant outside of Anglosphere and Europe. But you have to consider how much games that gain considerable Western attention like most blockbuster Nintendo games, Alex Wake 2, and Baldur's Gate 3 for example, they will get covered by mainstream media and treated as a big deal. GTA 6 trailer, for example, was a big deal in Europe (based on Google Trends) and irrelevant in Indonesia as an Indonesian myself because of GTA's long association with console gaming which seen a complete fall from their heyday in 2000s, but also covered by MSM. While this sounds like I want to pull this, well, no, I don't think we should pull this. While gaming across the world have taste differences, gaming is a big cultural industry like music and films. To be frank, we should change ITN/R like has proposed. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I don't want The Gaming Awards on ITN let alone ITN/R. The show is an advertisement, Geoff's friends getting access, and very far from a celebration of the best games. Omnifalcon (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be completely possible separate the ad-filled presentation show, and the actual awards, as a matter of distinguishing the "no promotion" issues that have been raised. Otherwise, we'd apply the same to any award that has a presentation ceremony or even things like many sporting events which could be argued as giant ads. M asem (t) 23:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. And to be frank, ITN/R is full of sporting events that aren't relevant. In particular I have issues with darts championship. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The Game Awards, imo, is pretty much a big ad and (condensed) game trailer show at this point. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Refaat Alareer
Alareer was killed in an Israeli airstrike on December 7. His work appeared on the BBC and ABC News. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support quality is up to par already.  nableezy  - 14:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know its just me here, but there isnt anything unsourced here, and the article is ready to go.  nableezy  - 16:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, though I have a COI here? (Am I allowed vote?) Actually, I was thinking that it could (also?) be a DYK -it qualifies for it, according to my DYK-checker. User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux: what do you think? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean COI because youre listed as updating the article, no, no COI at all.  nableezy  - 00:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear: I never knew Refaat Alareer at all, personally; my only connection to him was that I read his tweets. And I found them very informative. (I live far, far from Gaza). And yeah: when he was killed, it "felt personal", and I went to wp and edited (the newly-made) article about him, And I was therefor nominated as one of the "updaters", above. It was because I was nominated as one of the "updaters", that I thought I had a COI. (I am not familiar with the ITN-procedure at all, sorry).
 * I still think this could make a DYK? (That is a process I am far more familiar with), cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support DYK nomination if that's a process you're more familiar with, @Huldra. I think the quality is there for either RD or DYK. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both work.  nableezy  - 16:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article is good enough for RD, but his exact DoB should be sourced (currently just the year is). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. DOB is now sourced. I think that’s the last missing detail. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. But please note that he was killed on 6th December, not the 7th as originally (and incorrectly) stated. Should this thread be move to a different section? --NSH001 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just for internal purposes and at ITN we also go by the date announced if it’s different from the date of death. No need to move this discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Zephaniah

 * Prominent British poet. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support the Books, acting roles and discography sections could do with more sources but that's not a blocker imo. There is a citation needed tag but it's for possibly the least contentious statement in the article, so definitely not something to hold up posting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as per Thryduulf. Headline news on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime, with a tribute from Lemn Sissay. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well written and up to date, and it is definitely notable. TWM03 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Lead section could use some expansion, such as talk about why he's influential, cover some influential works and if possible the themes of his works/impacts of his works. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The lead needs expansion. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  16:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * support Article seems fine, the figure is important enough. I don't see any reason not to have him added. Manumaker08 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * support I've expanded the lead and filled in a couple of citation gaps. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lajmmoore, a major improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Books, acting, and discography are pretty much unreferenced. Stephen 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we'd need to add citations for books. They are the citations. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * books are references. Polyamorph (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No they’re not, most of them are not linked and no ISBNs, how does a reader know that they’re real? Stephen 10:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per my comment below, their bibliographic information could be expanded, but books are absolutely references. No citations needed. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are ISBNs sufficient? Are ISBNs also required for works that have their own article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBNs are sufficient, just like they would be within any reference section on Wikipedia. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are these places that are full of books, staffed by people who will be able to FIND A BOOK FOR YOU. Some of them (after many years of training and experience) can find a book from nothing more than a description of the contents. They are called libraries and librarians respectively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support possibly more sourcing needed on acting roles and discography. Citations are not needed for books, although the entries could be expanded to provide fuller bibliographic information. But none of these should prevent posting, IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as consensus above is that the article quality is high enough for RD. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ellen Holly
Article mostly ready, but needs some more citations. Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some ref work needed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Few citations still needed in prose, and entire filmography is uncited. Will cross-post to WT:Women in Red to see if there is interest in improving this. Curbon7 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the areas needing citation have been improved. Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vic Davalillo
Venezuelan baseball player, played in Major League Baseball and the Mexican League. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article needs one round of edits to ensure all citations are added. Multiple sentences currently missing citations. Let me know if you'd prefer I tag the article. Ktin (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , tagging might be helpful to progress this bio.  Schwede 66  18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Shooting at UNLV
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c4e:1400:8b87:e00a:35ff:9e7d:c29b (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2023 December 8 (UTC)


 * Oppose - not enough victims to warrant posting. Also, you failed to sign your nomination. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with Rockstone35. Unfortunately this has become a "common occurrence" in the US. Natg 19 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has, but I would oppose posting a mass shooting from anywhere with this few victims. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rockstone35 Not to be that guy, but WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a policy PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 fatalities in a shooting in Andorra or Italy is not the same as 4 fatalities in the USA. And you know that. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but the death count shouldn't be the sole reason to oppose. I would oppose this simply because it hasn't generated sufficient coverage or impact PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ups, I was responding Rockstone’s comment. Sorry _-_Alsor (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose sad routine without a high number of victims. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per Rockstone and Natg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Tragic, but unfortunately not that huge by the US’ standards at this point. The   Kip  03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit depressing that it's consider "not that huge by US' standards" but I understand. Although I still believe that the numbers of victims killed in the shooting doesn't matter, I can see why it's not consider "major" news. 2600:6C4E:1400:8B87:E00A:35FF:9E7D:C29B (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

First 4th gen nuclear reactor enters commercial operation
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.58.6 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with Taylor Swift PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and fixed the article link; odd error but probably a copy-paste fail, we've all done stuff like that. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Taylor Swift is also a nuclear engineer on top of being a singer?? Now I understand why she won Person of the Year PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready – Article looks pretty good, but no writing has been done on 2023 yet. Once thoroughly updated, I think this will be a nice feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No precise definition of a Generation IV reactor exists. The concept and claim of a first is therefore mostly hype. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know the tech, but perhaps we can be more specific in our blurb with a description of the new technologies used? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of reading the article. This tells us that this is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor.  If you then read that page, you learn that "The Peach Bottom unit 1 reactor in the United States was the first HTGR to produce electricity, and did so very successfully, with operation from 1966 through 1974".  So, for the Chinese to claim this as a remarkable new first is hype and that's not new.  Remember when Chekov would parody Russian boasts by regularly claiming that everything "was invented in Russia". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It sure does exist. Gen-IV reactor designs (whether liquid metal/salt or gas cooled) operate at higher temperatures cf. conventional reactors, therefore have higher operational performance and efficiency. The fast neutron and breeder designs also have the advantage of being able to "burn" long half-life transuranic elements from waste fission products, thereby increasing the overall fuel utilisation and facilitating a sustainable closed nuclear fuel chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Provisional Support once the quality issues per Maplestrip are resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see stories that are not relying on Chinese state media to confirm this. And more preferably from sources that would meet SCIRS (not necessarily a peer reviewed paper, but some source with a good foundation in reporting science news). --M asem (t) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality per Maplestrip. Noteworthy step forward in reactor tech as long as it can be verified and the article(s) updated. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good news! Major step forward to have such a plant online This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuclear power in China explains that "As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW." What's so special about this one? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The aspect of this comment that amused me, is that bringing a plant online is a good step in the process of bringing a plant online :p ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unconvinced that the definition is clear or indeed that it applies here. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Illia Kyva

 * Comment The biography section has a lot of uncited info. LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support there are some CN tags, but overall relatively RD-ready. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready The biography section is entirely unsourced and there are other gaps in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait way too many unsourced statements, that's why I didn't nominate it myself. JM (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I can remove the "early life" section as that's the only bit that's unsourced; but do we know of any Ukrainian or Russian speaking Wikipedians that could help rather than doing that? Very hard to find much in other languages, shame because the rest of the article is very good. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Update All cited now, can we post this? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Lear
M asem (t) 14:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good, but it has a few too many citation needed tags to be ready just yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD: I've dealt with the citation tags (added refs and removed some transaction details I couldn't verify and which were extraneous anyway). Additionally support blurb as a transformative figure in US television: "revolutionized prime time television ... propelling political and social turmoil into the once-insulated world of TV sitcoms" (AP); "leaving a lasting mark with shows that brought the sitcom into the real world" (NYT); "It's impossible to overstate the importance of television producer Norman Lear to American culture ... For at least one generation, television doesn’t exist without Lear's singular vision" (WaPo). Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be really help to have a paragraph or so specifically talking about his influence on TV, perhaps inthe Awards and Honors section, as to be able to support a blurb. I should be able to clearly identify why he was such an influence on American TV buy reading such a sourced section in the body of the article (I know he is that influential but we need to see that plain and clear) M asem (t) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On it... Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, begun this para at . Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good start M asem (t) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose blurb. Article is cited well enough but I personally don't think he meets notability for blurb ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD nice article. Polyamorph (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Time Person of the year
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukt64 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t believe we’ve blurbed Person of the Year in recent memory, and I don’t see any special reason to start it now, especially when this one has had less of a definitive global impact than past awardees. The   Kip  19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kip. A magazine saying "hey, you're slightly better than everyone else" is not ITN worthy  q w 3 r t y  20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Kip ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even the year it was me, hi im the person of the year it wasnt really news.  nableezy  - 20:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TIME's person of the year is always major worldwide news. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the Kip, plus this is only one magazine and wouldn't be that notable even if we had posted it before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good for her, but we never post this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We never blurb Person of the Year, and she's been far less influential than most before. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say "celebrity news". DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above JM (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Former President of Mauritania sentenced to prison
Joofjoof (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Major political development in the country, not every day a former president gets sentenced to prison. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Article really needs some expansion on the corruption case. But I think it is minimally adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Wieland

 * Support Article is in good shape, good to go for posting. ~ Tails   Wx  13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Michaung
Leoneix (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added an alt-blurb that better follows typical consensus on cyclone blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering all 17 deaths were there, would 2023 Chennai floods be a better target article, or should a blurb incorporate it? The   Kip  19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt-blurb III on notability. There is a precedent where we posted a similar death toll in Bangladesh. The article isn't too expansive, however.  Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reiterating my support now that the articles have been merged. IMO the merge was a good thing. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  18:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is of sufficient length. I like alt blurb II the best, tho maybe restructure it a bit, here's my idea: "Cyclone Michaung makes landfall in India, leaving Chennai flooded and 17 dead." LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI. I BOLDly merged the floods page into the cyclone page on account of the fact that they document the same issue and contained more or less the same content. No need to double-link the same event by separately linking the flooding. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb III seems good now that the flood and cyclone articles have been merged. Leoneix (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is rain and floods all over the world currently including Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Pacific NW, the Seychelles, Tanzania, UK. It's the usual autumn weather amped up by climate change and El Niño.  See WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be of interest to write detailed articles on other weather situations as well, unless you think this article should be deleted wholesale per NOTNEWS? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the user you’re replying to, I have a strange feeling that the answer is probably no to writing the articles. He’s nothing more than a contrarian. The   Kip  03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson The news is about a cyclone which caused heavy rain and flood in a major city and not just seasonal rain. Leoneix (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. BD2412  T 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: William P. Murphy Jr.

 * Inventor of the modern blood bag. Thriley (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the copyvio issue in the "Career" section. —M3ATH (See · Say) 19:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Along with the copyright violation tag, there's too many problems with the article. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 10:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Denny Laine

 * Founder of two major UK rock bands, The Moody Blues and Wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Some sections have tags on them, these need addressing. PS: He also wrote a great song "Say You Don't Mind".  <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably his best work. There is also a slight question over his birthplace, see Talk:Denny Laine. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is alright, and I think it's good to honor his memory on ITN. His guitar was essential for Wings, and he wrote some very good songs for them. He co-authored Mull of Kintyre, one of the biggest hits in history of the British pop music.Trepang2 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * UK 1977 Christmas number one, spent nine weeks there, first single to sell over two million copies nationwide. Not many pop hits have featured the Great Highland bagpipe. Although there was Wizzard's 1974 "Are You Ready to Rock?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. do you know where Laine was born?


 * Support Highly notable musician. The article is also looking fine so far except some tags. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * notability is irrelevant for RD, see the note at the bottom of the pale yellow box JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait way too many tags and uncited sections right now, must be improved JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does every entry in the "Discography" section need an individual source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too many orange tags for the quality to be up to par. Please fix. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please help. Cheers, Toyota Supra. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * I swear the moment we pull this from the main page, a new major offensive is going to start up and the news media will be yuking to blare the "BREAKING NEWS" horn again. I'm not saying the timing for this is wrong, it's more that we seem to have a (coincidental) tendency to trigger this anytime we pull something from ongoing. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The timing for this is wrong. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What would be a good timing? This event defocussed the COVID-19 pandemic, which was removed from ongoing shortly afterwards, and it was recently defocussed by the Israel-Hamas war. That's simply how the media work. US not approving additional funding to Ukraine partly because they had begun supporting Israel is just a demonstration that it went out of focus in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin just signed decree that increases the number of army by 170000, or 15 per cent
 * 
 * 
 * This is obviously a significant development, one that could lead to another wave of mobilisation. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * : It is still a Relevant topic with tons of articles everyday coming out of it.
 * Von bismarck (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If there was a clear rationale behind the removal, it could have been summed up in one sentence.
 * It generates enough news and events, with USA funding not approved. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kirill C1, although I might be more readily convinced with a more concise rationale for removal. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still the preeminent conflict in the world in terms or geo-political gravity. Has a much a stronger claim to being in ongoing than either Myanmar or Sudan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral – In the past two weeks, only three sentences have been added to this article. It's a weak growth that doesn't really match what "ongoing" means on Wikipedia, but it's not nothing and I know that articles like this go in waves. Another wave of activity will probably happen. That being said, I don't know how much further this article specifically will evolve. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * what about the timeline article? I think the reason that it's also there is because the main article gets fewer updates (which itself could be a sign that it should be taken down). JM (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad & WaltCip; early winter has historically always seen offensives stall in this region. As the mud freezes, it's quite likely we'll start seeing offensive actions start back up. Additionally, we are undoubtedly going to see escalated drone and missile attacks as well. Unless there is a prolonged ceasefire or a peace deal, I see no reason to pull from ongoing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a crystal-ball argument. If a major offensive starts during the winter, we can easily report it. For now, it's only a speculation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the above, I'm sure things will heat up again in the Spring, additionally this is still a relevent topic. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Per WaltClip. Though, I am not convinced to fully "oppose" either on account of what is more or less the fact that it is cold. This discussion is really lacking in strong arguments. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if this criminal act and the brave defence against it reached a sort of halt that does not make it less ongoing in the grand scheme of things. And it's still a relevant world topic. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...if it's halted then it is not ongoing. it's either halted or it's ongoing. JM (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What criminal act?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM —M3ATH (See · Say) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m trying to get the meaning of “criminal act” because it’s a very strong phrase that normally violates WP:CIVIL.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies; that seems to have been an indentation mistake on my part. I meant to point out that the phrases "crimminal act" and "brave defence" violated WP:NOTFORUM. —M3ATH (See · Say) 18:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the moment I don't care about NOTFORUM and am considering the question to be put forward in bad faith. For reasons of stating the obdious, the criminal act of the russian invasion of Ukraine. It may be ongoing and stalled just like evolution or climate change is ongoing but you'd be hard pressed to point to any specific things that happened today to make them ongoing. Guys, you needn't reply mentioning that this is not a forum for opinions, I know. It's just that this issue is personally important to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider that there are certain guidelines for what can be in ongoing, which is why evolution and climate change are not there. Look at the current events portal to see a secondary level of ongoing events which are not on the main page, which is where this page would go if a proposal like this ever passed. JM (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So you are allowed to violate NOTFORUM and AGF if an issue is personally important to you. Got it. —M3ATH (See · Say) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted above, that is not how Ongoing items are evaluated. Significant and frequent updates are important, which is a valid thing to question in this scenario. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - I do understand where this is coming from, but this would be a bad idea. First of all, the COVID-19 comparison isn't valid because there's no such policy as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The notability of the war isn't due to the death toll. It's still regularly in the news and a huge part of global discourse, one of the biggest events in the 21st Century. And finally, I think if there was to be some escalation in the future, we should post it regardless like we posted the annexation of south-east Ukraine to Russia or the Wagner Rebellion. I do agree that Opposing because the war could escalate in the future is Crystal Balling, but still. Unless the war ends or really grinds down to a Korean-style stalemate (which it hasn't yet, still massive battles raging), it should stay up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the status quo remains, we can come back and review in a few months. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * If nothing major happens by, say, July 2024, then id say this would be a genuine proposal. For now, its still the second-most covered war, only behind the War in Gaza. Lukt64 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Suminda Sirisena

 * Oppose Shouldn't be posted till the Notable stage dramas section is well-cited and the orange tag is removed. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Still lacking sources in multiple sections: Notable stage dramas, Filmography, and Awards and honours. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Thomas Ragle

 * Obituary published 4 December. Thriley (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. Article looks okay in terms of sources. However, the article itself could be expanded more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 10:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Short but holistic and well sourced. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How ready is this article? BangJan1999 18:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks rather stubby to me.  Schwede 66  18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve now expanded the article to 2301 characters. Thriley (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sophie Anderson

 * Support article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD.  Spencer T• C 06:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jerome O'Neill
Thriley (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks well-cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Resume in prose format, mostly a list of roles without much depth. What cases was he known for being involved with?  Spencer T• C 06:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juanita Castro
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support looks fine to me JM (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment DoB is uncited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice, I'll support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good. Never knew the sister of Fidel Castro worked for the CIA ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 eruption of Mount Marapi
Very major natural disaster, the first volcano eruption in 2023 with a death toll. Article is pretty short at the moment, though it will be expanded as more information is reported. LynxesDesmond 🐈 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is a stub.  Schwede 66  17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose First off, such a minimal death toll is not ITN-worthy, second, the article would need to be expanded to fit ITN-Criteria. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on article quality. The article needs significant improvements to fulfil ITN criteria. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality Article needs to be expanded and be a bit more fully in-depth before posting. Support on notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support on notability Article lengthwise seems ok. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Great work and others for expanding the article to its current state. It looks in a solid state for a main page feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The death of a two-digit number of hikers as a result of a volcanic eruption is a significant disaster. Article looks minimally sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above JM (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - and I dont think an argument about a minimal death toll is ever valid here. Needs the target in the blurb, something like Mount Marapi erupts on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, killing 22 hikers.. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, with Nableezy's improvement to the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note waiting for the image to be protected before switching it. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

COP 28
There's a variety of possible blurbs and the president, Sultan Al Jaber, seems to be making waves. Perhaps Ongoing is best to cover all the angles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support seems to be updated frequently, and is receiving ongoing coverage. Quality is also there. JM (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The quality of the article is not great, but it's acceptable, and has been updated. The significance is overwhelming, given the climate emergency. This is ongoing for another week, and media coverage is not going to decrease, especially after al-Jaber's opposition to fossil fuel phase out (and mansplaining: I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation) and the revelation that there are 70,000 participants ... Boud (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has been a worldwide scandal, with some significant coverage in multiple periodicals. The COP28 article is messy, but not particularly problematic. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per precedent. We waited last year for the conclusion of the event and any major decisions that came out of it. No need to post right now, and honestly, the controversies in question have me seriously doubting the actual value of COP at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened last year was that an ITN decision was deferred and then nothing was done. This is the common outcome in this matter – procrastination.  Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per precedent. If something important comes out of this, we can post it, but given that the president is being accused of climate change denial, that is highly unlikely. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb - Put up the event and controversy surrounding PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If anything significant comes out of this, then maybe a blurb may be more appropriate, but for now, this is not significant enough.Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing item nomination, many significant things such as the nuclear energy promise and the controversy promise Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is for when a blurb rolls off but the event is still notable and In The News, or if there is a significant amount of independent news items related to the event coming in. Neither has happened here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's false as there are plenty of stories coming out of this ongoing event. For example, right now the online NYT has four headlines on its main page:
 * Climate Summit Leader Tries to Calm Uproar...
 * Global Fossil Fuel Emissions Are Rising...
 * Air-Conditioning Use Will Surge in a Warming World...
 * 1.5 Degrees Is Not the Problem
 * So, with four front page headlines, that's more than any of the other ongoing ITN entries for which the scores are Gaza=3, Ukraine=2, Myanmar=0, Sudan=0. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I'd say 2 of those stories would not be suitable for a blurb. The only two angles that we could go for would be the event happening and surrounding controversy. It's no shock to anyone that fossil fuel emissions are rising, and the other article is an opinion piece. The quantity of headlines does increase notability, but doesn't necessarily indicate it should be ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose until end of the event and then determine if there's anything useful out of it. We have not posted the past COP nor the onset of other G7/G20/equivalent international meetings, but only give a blurb if there is some major, actionable agreement that comes out that, and that's usually not known until the last day of the event. --M asem (t) 01:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as per reasons above Roma enjoyer (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until it's over and then blurb it if there is anything worth the notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb as per Nsk92. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing, oppose blurb unless there's meaningful action worthy of being posted. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as affects so many countries Chidgk1 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the conference ends and post any major conclusions. I don't see reporting on important decisions during the conference in the article to justify posting onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work – Currently the lead section exclusive speaks of the background/leadup to the event. More writing needs to be done and the article must be rebalanced before this can be featured. Article has a lot of potential, however. I can see a lot of work has been put into this in the past months! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Venezuelan referendum

 *  Support Oppose significant because it is an international incident and territorial dispute featuring a military buildup alongside this referendum, but the article needs to be updated; the results tables have no information. done after taking a second look it's clear those sources do not back up those numbers, which are inaccurate. this article cannot be blurbed until there are accurate numbers. JM (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support quality has improved, the significance I outlined in my original review still stands. JM (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per JM. Those results were not accurate. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I really don't think many realise how bad this situation is getting, and the massive impact it will have on everything. This needs to be put up on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it might be good to say that the people """"""voted"""""" to annex, supposedly by a 95% majority (shocking result I know) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - The referendum did not explicitly ask voters to approve the annexation of the Essequibo region, but rather supported the establishment of a state in the disputed area (among other provisions). The referendum is a step towards a potential annexation, but it wasn't asking for it directly. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that it is a de facto annexation, fully incorporating a neighbouring territory as a part of your state. It's the same thing that the Russians did, Donetsk and Luhansk becoming full fledged republics of the federation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it could be argued that it is a "de facto annexation", it still is not (the referendum is consultative and therefore voting to approve simply doesn't codify anything other than to send a message of approval), and there is not a significant body of work that directly states the referendum is asking to directly do so (however, there are many other things that are adjacent to a potential annexation or significant action being taken that are at hand in relation to the referendum) and the assertion of such would be a violation of WP:NOR. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The big difference is that Venezuela doesn't have de facto possession of the territory. As I understand it, it's controlled by Guyana and they are backed up by Brazil's powerful military.  Venezuela is sabre-rattling for domestic consumption as the country is otherwise a shambles. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've made some improvements on the article, but more is needed on the veracity of the referendum. I highly doubt it was free and fair PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support of clear significance and both bolded articles appear in good shape. I agree that annex is probably not the right word to use as that usually implies some degree of control over the territory. Not quite sure how best to word this - maybe "vote to a establish a state in the disputed region". ITBF (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an ongoing dispute which is still before the ICJ. Venezuela's referendum does not seem significant as what will matter is physical control on the ground and international recognition.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Blurb is a bit long, and two bolded articles might be too much. Also no need to add "shown in green" if the map is already labeled. Support the shorter and more concise altblurb. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and I have proposed alt2 to address concerns that the referendum wasn't technically for annexation. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb, whatever happens, this appears to be a noteworthy aggressive move by Venezuela, underpinning its claim. Article looks ok. Brandmeistertalk  11:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alternative blurb II III in principle, Oppose main and alternative blurb: The referendum consisted in five questions, only of which the last one asked to begin steps to incorporate the territory, so the issue is more nuanced than voters asking to annex the territory, as others have mentioned.


 * Likewise, also commented above already, there's the initial results: while polls estimated a 20% turnout (around 4 million voters) and those figures were even coonsidered an overestimation, the Venezuelan government now says that over 10 million people voted (over 50% turnout). I think there weren't independent observers, but allowing this around 12 hours or so should allow to learn the position of experts and the opposition.


 * I know that electoral results usually aren't questioned in the ITN, but this should also be considered in the blurb (see (Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine). If everything else fails, I would support the inclusion of the Guayana Esequiba crisis article in the Ongoing section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding referendum questions, as shown in the article, all of them are related to Guayana Esequiba which is explicitly mentioned in each of them, not just the last one. The 3rd one is perhaps particularly provocative, about "Venezuela's historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba". Also, altblurb II looks too verbose and conniving. Brandmeistertalk  11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is an important move by Venezuela, but i understand why some are apprehensive to add it. But it IS a vote to annex a part of another sovereign nation, and should be brought to light.
 * Manumaker08 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So, shall we blurb this as a "resounding failure" for the Maduro regime? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb III, Oppose main and alternative blurb Concise and addresses prior WP:SYNTH concerns I've had with the first two blurbs. Potential regional conflict that can arise, and ITN significance is clear. My only concern is that the article is not updated with the final results for any of the 5 questions. I believe Portuguese wiki has the results, but I'm uncertain as to if they have the source for the results. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Update The results are in: Maduro vote to claim Guyana’s territory backfires as Venezuelans stay home"Turnout was minimal ... most voters shunned the issue ... the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the results ... It was a resounding failure for Maduro ... they rigged the results ... massive PR disaster ... firing the propaganda machine ... 7 million people to flee the country ... leaves an enormous gap ..."
 * Support amendment This has been one of my main points: the nuances of the referendum should be reflected, since the official results are widely distrusted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready — Knightof  theswords  01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed as premature. Article still hasn't been updated with results, which are in dispute. The   Kip  04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Said results will likely be in dispute for a while; good chance that they will never be released given that we're talking about Chavist Venezuela. The article is otherwise decent. — Knightof  theswords  00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The results would most likely be skewed twords Venezuela, but we'll see. Rager7 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for obvious reasons. It's currently trending on the news and shall be posted. Rager7 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support conceptually, Oppose all blurbs. The statement that "Venezuelans vote to" support their government is dubious at the very best. Abundant nuance to this situation is evident, I accept, but lack of referendum tampering is improbable. Below example blurb, a modification of alt3, is preferable:
 * Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a Venezuelan referendum succeeds to support the government's claim on the disputed Guayana Esequiba region (shown in green). 180.150.81.68 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in case of tampering something like "Venezuelan referendum supports the annexation..." may work, to avoid placing the responsibility on Venezuelan people whose opinion may have been manipulated. Brandmeistertalk  20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Much preferable indeed. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. RSes are making it pretty blunt that the government’s reported turnout/vote count is highly disputed, so to frame it as the referendum legitimately voting to support is to effectively take the government line. The   Kip  21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Results tables updated. The precise amount of votes has not be announed, only the percentages.--NoonIcarus (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping . --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I think Maduro declared on TV de facto annexation. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per all above. Article’s quality looks good and it is clearly a significant geopolitical event. Good work on the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Also it is worth adding that people did not turn out for the referendum. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted a modified version of altblurb3 per 's comment above. Further tweaks may be needed. In the future, if you want a significant change to the suggested blurbs it makes it easier on admins if you write it out in full. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This came up at Errors and an even more neutral wording was suggested there, which I have adopted.  Schwede 66  03:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit off topic, but what is Errors? Ornithoptera (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Errors, for reporting errors on the main page. Stephen 04:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, the blurb first posted wasThis was then revised after discussion at WP:ERRORS to . Further discussion now continues at WP:ERRORS.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 attack on the USS Carney
A U.S Navy warship and a few commercial ships was struck by ballistic missiles fired from Yemen, and a few U.S Navy warships also shot down a few drones in self-defense. NewPedia24 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poorly informative blurb, and ideally we should have an article talking about the incident before putting it on ITN. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Chaotic Enby + fairly mundane incident in the grand scheme of things. The   Kip  01:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The "actual" article should be 2023 attack on the USS Carney which might be a bit more relevant than "an explosion", but still. Also borderline under Ongoing. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * SNOW provincial, no article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even with the article, my understanding is that all of the US ships and bases in the Persian Gulf have generally seen these types of attacks or attempts at attacks by the various terrorist groups for years, and there's nothing new here outside this taking place at the same time as the active conflict in Gaza. None of these attacks have succeeded in any major issues (no lost of ships, etc) so while nothing to sneeze at, its business as usual. --M asem (t) 01:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Trivial incident that probably doesn't pass WP:EVENT. If the article doesn't end up being merged/redirected I may send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Changed heading and target article, and added altblurb JM (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose There have been multiple incidents like this in the past few weeks and this one isn't much different. No casualties and the U.S. warship wasn't actually hit. I also think the target article, 2023 attack on the USS Carney, should be nominated for deletion unless all recent attacks are merged into one. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. NewPedia24 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peta Murphy

 * Support Article is well sourced and I don't see any problems. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, a well sourced article. As well as her parliamentary duties, this lady was a champion squash and softball player, and a strong advocate on women's heath issues. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Mindanao State University bombing
Significant number of injuries. Article in good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks good. The lede section could use a bit of expanding, but the prose has a lot of details. Nice work! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article has expanded a lot since yesterday (tho not the lede section, haha). Probably a pretty good feature at this point, impressive level of detail. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article’s quality and significance both are up to par - no major issues with it. Maybe some other editors could check and vote accordingly? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Low death toll but noteworthy due to the background. Also added an alt - no need to link "Islamic terrorism" in the blurb though, that might be a bit touchy and is not really needed. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My original blurb did not mention Islamic terrorism but it seems like it was changed. Natg 19 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am NOT the one who changed it, but I agree with the change; it makes it clear that this is part of a much broader conflict. Seems pertinent for the blurb to mention that. JM (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Tudun Biri drone strike
Article needs a lot of work. But there are a significant number of deaths caused by this accidental drone strike in Nigeria. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality wow (referring to both the event and to the article's poor quality) JM (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. JM took the words right out of my mouth. Article is still in its infancy, but a massive tragedy. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. per above Lukt64 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Per everyone above. This is an awful tragedy, but the article needs to be expanded. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 10:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment the article looks a lot better now, what do you think @Midori No Sora @Lukt64 @DarkSide830 JM (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Still kinda short and with some awkward phrasing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with DarkSide830. While the article looks better than before, it could be expanded slightly more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 00:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yacouba Sawadogo
“The man who stopped the desert” Jmanlucas (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: three unsourced sentences, two of which is a summary of sourced sentences. I haven’t verified yet <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up any sentences I believe need citing. Feel free to add any CN tags to areas you still think should be cited. I don't believe every sentence necessarily needs a citation if a group of sentences use the same source. Jmanlucas (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there was a rule somewhere that citations covered everything before it until the previous citation but I can't find it. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ronnie O'Sullivan wins UK Championship
Ronnie O'Sullivan defeats China's Ding Junhui 10–7 to win a record-extending eighth UK Championship title. The UK Championship is one of the three prestigious Triple Crown events in snooker, which O'Sullivan has won a record 22 times. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this ITN/R? If so, please indicate in the nom; if not, oppose due to insignificance. JM (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, only the World Snooker Championship is WP:ITN/R. Oppose too. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Snooker’s a debatable inclusion on ITNR in the first place, and a non-ITNR tournament doesn’t meet the bar imo. The   Kip  01:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think any tournament of anything that is not by now in ITN/R is probably not significant JM (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's the second or third biggest snooker event of the year (World Championship being the biggest one, which is why it's ITNR), and the coverage of it is therefore not enough to justify ITN placing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment O'Sullivan's longevity in this sport is truly remarkable. He first won the UK Championship as a 17-year-old in 1993, and now he has become both the oldest and the youngest winner of this tournament. To win the event 8 times, surpassing other dominant players like Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry is also a great achievement. But it's snooker, so it won't get posted. A shame.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is not for any person with "remarkable" achievement, and it's not even about it being snooker. The UK Championship just doesn't rise to ITN's threshold of notability. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The article is beautiful, a really excellent job has been put on it. I do think snooker is well-represented with an annual posting of the World Championship, which typically reaches the same level of quality. As a feature of O'Sullivan's article as well (GA), I think this would be a lovely thing to be putting on ITN. However, I don't want to create precedent of regularly featuring minor tournaments in sports versus premier tournaments, especially when it comes to national stuff, so I'm rather on the edge here.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Why not? The thing that sways for me is the record, that they are now the youngest and oldest winner of the tournament. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing against snooker, but only the world championship rises to the level of meriting a blurb at ITN IMHO. There are numerous sporting tournaments of interest around the world, including lots of highly competitive football leagues and such, but we just can't include everything. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. He is both the youngest and the oldest winner of Championship. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One ITN/R snooker item is plenty. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support while I personally think the topic is a bit silly, we should be posting more of all kinds of items on ITN. The article's quality is also quite high. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Myles Goodwyn
Canadian musician. Article needs a bit of work. Citations are slowly coming along. Flibirigit (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Just a citation or two left I know. Sad to hear this, big April Wine fan but obviously I haven't kept up on later developments. CoatCheck (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. One remaining CN tag in lead but I think it's good. microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 13:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above JM (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will work on the article this week. It has two citation tags in the career section, and has little personal information. The discography section is not cited, and some production credits need citations. Flibirigit (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * READY. All items now have citations. Personal life has been expanded. Flibirigit (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Large gap in coverage related to the subject's solo career prior to 2008, which is alluded to in the prose and his discography. Wish there was more about his role as part of April Wine but that article seems to have good depth so willing to overlook that.  Spencer T• C 05:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have anymore time to work on this article. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking ready despite Spencer's well meaning oppose. Agree that the article would be better with the information being requested. But, what is there is just good-enough. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glenys Kinnock
Needs a few citations before it's passable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - will need a looot of work before it's good to go. See that the bulk of her article is badly written and sourceless. I've tagged the article for everything needing a ref. At the moment, the problems are quite extensive. Sad news though. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * - Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - fixed all referencing issues. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article. Looks good to go! Good work, Tim O'Doherty. Jmanlucas (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. So strange, I was just reading about her daughter-in-law earlier today.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. No problems found, well sourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 00:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Publications need references. Stephen 08:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 10:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Medea Amiranashvili
Many thanks to GRuban for adding from Russian and elsewhere! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Faustin Twagiramungu

 * Support on notability, and article quality is generally good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a critera for RD, all that matters is that the subject has an article, which all valid RD nominations have by definition JM (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: has one "citation needed" tag, but is otherwise fine. --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the notice. Jmanlucas (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article has improved a lot. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Martin

 * Weak support Article feels a little barebones, but it's well-cited and longer than a stub. The   Kip  07:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Albright

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic, good work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, more sources can likely be found on Newspapers.com, which is available through WP:The Wikipedia Library. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was not aware of this resource, as I'd been relying on ones that were publicly available online, outside of the database. I've also corrected his time of tenure, as AL.com appears to have been mistaken. Kafoxe (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support sufficiently sourced for posting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brigit Forsyth

 * British actress, known for Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? and multiple other TV/film/stage work. Fairly short, but cited. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The infobox currently gives her birth name as "Brigit Dorothea Connell", but I can find no source for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Whilst I've no reason to doubt it, nor can I, so I've removed it. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. But I found a couple of things - see Talk page. A bit baffling. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... and then there's this interview... Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Place of birth now resolved. Likely birth name has been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Byrne
Noted Scottish artist and playwright, could do with a few citations. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom, article is orange-tagged. The   Kip  22:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article quality issues have been fixed. The   Kip  07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Been updated, think issues have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a single CN tag in the "Writer" table, but rest of the article's fine. Switching my vote. The   Kip  07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Badar uz Zaman

 * Oppose Fairly significant amount of unsourced content. The   Kip  22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Long string of bullet-points, largely unsourced. There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) George Santos expelled from US Congress
Only the sixth time in history someone has been kicked out of the House(and three of those were due to the Civil War) and the first since 2002. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) We also have a great article to post. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very rare evert QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Sixth time..." already indicates this is not exceptional, and given the weak consensus for the outing of McCarthy from House Speaker, I don't think getting this far into US politics is a good idea. --M asem (t) 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not six times this week, it's six times since 1787, and three of those were on one occasion(the Civil War) so really it's only four times. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support expulsions from other national legislative bodies, too. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, it's the sixth time in history, across a span of years that exceeds the duration of pretty much every legislature on the planet besides the UK's Parliament. It's only the third time in the past 160 years. If we wanted to go with a Eurocentric view comparison here, this would be equivalent to something that'd just not been done since WW2 happening again. - Nottheking (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In a different version of ITN, this would be a great nom. We should be posting articles that have substantial or interesting updates due to recent events, and this one has that in spades. This guy has been in office for less than a year and has a longer article than Nancy Pelosi (probably).  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose so what? Nor does it seem to affect legislative normalcy or party domains. I suppose it is highly advisable that we look at the parliamentary activity (and its history) of other countries. Open the vision. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "So what?" could be applied to most news stories we blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it's not the US's fault that all the breaking news is happening here this week. Rare event, great article, etc. Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Expulsion of members of legislatures is not as rare as you might think. If it has not been posted, it is because the editors have made the previous exercise of thinking that it is not significant. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you list some other expulsions? It's rare in the US. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The senate has expelled 15 members. However, 14 were during the Civil War and 1 was in 1797 for treason/conspiracy. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I was wondering about expulsions in other legislative bodies(to respond to the assertion that this isn't a rare thing) 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In fairness, we kind of have to exclude those expelled during the Civil War. That was both some 160 years ago, and during a very different environment. This would be analogous to saying something happening in a European country is unusual just because it happened a number of times during World War 2. We're talking about an entirely different period of history. - Nottheking (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In Spain: Laura Borràs, Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, Oriol Junqueras and others Catalan independence leaders.
 * In Argentina: Angel Luque, Varela Cid and Ancari de Godoy.
 * In Ukraine: Serhiy Vlasenko.
 * In Russia: Gennady Gudkov.
 * In the UK: Horatio Bottomley, Peter Baker, Garry Allighan.
 * To give a few examples. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that  Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? actually works against inclusion on ITN. I don't think we have before, and I don't think we should (rationale below in my Oppose vote).  Bremps  ...  17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Certainly an exceptional event, but one that I feel doesn't have too much of an impact. Kevin McCarthy being ousted as Speaker just barely made ITN, and that was an even more unprecedented event. PolarManne (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic political scandals below the level of a head of state/government are not ITN material. I can't remember the last time (if ever) we posted anything like this. Crooked pols exist all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Criminal expelled from congress... little impact on its functioning and not really that important of an event. This wouldn't be considered for any other country.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would. And this does have an impact on functioning, reducing the already narrow GOP majority by one. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the first time that someone has been expelled who has not been yet convicted of a crime. He can't even be legally called a criminal yet.
 * FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He accepted a plea deal in Brazil for check fraud.

<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 21:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is not really that noteworthy in my opinion, basically just political trivia. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, agreeing with 331dot. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We are confusing the issue by suggesting that this has earth-shattering political significance on the basis that the last such expulsion came during the Civil War. Rather, this was someone who was federally indicted for fraud and refused to resign as most other politicians would normally do in this scenario. Nixon's impeachment would have been significant whether or not he resigned or stayed until the bitter end, just because of how massive the fundamentals of the case were. Contrariwise, we would not be talking about this if Santos had simply resigned. is right in that this is trivia.  Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot. This is historic and making global headlines, and as others have mentioned, we have a great article on this topic and this is the best moment to feature it. Davey2116 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the second Congressional expulsion of the 21st century. Not to mention one of 3 representatives who have been expelled on anything else than insurrection during the civil war. On top of the fact that the media is clearly covering this story extensively, this expulsion will set a new precedent in the operation of the United States House of Representatives. How this event will impact the house in the long term remains to be seen, regardless we are witnessing history unfold before our eyes. I strongly support this article's nomination FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Traficant was expelled in 2002. Curbon7 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose What would be the wider significance of this event? He is not a national leader. Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House was debatable, as he held a major position and because it was the first time it ever happened. Santos, on the other hand, is one representative out of more than 400 and is not the first congressperson to be expelled.  Bremps  ...  17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Notability is a bit iffy but I could get behind putting it up due to how rare this event is and how much coverage it has generated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I knew this was going to get nominated. A member of a legislative body getting expelled does not mean its life changing. It did not have a huge impact in the House, and isn't considerate for other countries outside of the U.S.
 *  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support This is a highly unprecedented move. This marks a very unusual threshold (as I've seen others mention) as this is the first time ever (out of thousands upon thousands of people to serve in Congress) person to be expelled for any reason other than "they directly participated in a rebellion against the Union" or "they were convicted of a felony but refused to resign." This will certainly have serious implications for the USA as a whole (which is sufficient reason for ITN: almost all news posted in ITN only directly impacts a single country, and isn't inherently an international event) but as of yet this total effect is unclear. It's understandable to note that this doesn't hold up to the standard for level of impact of, say, the prior posting of Henry Kissinger, as Kissinger was a truly international figure that had a greater impact on multiple countries than any of their respective heads of government they've had since.
 * At the minimum, this clearly will appear in the past as an "OTD" item, but I can see there being legitimate arguments that it doesn't meet the threshold for ITN. (mostly centered around how the greater impact outside of the GOP is unclear, and that such claims to notability might be construed as speculation) Unfortunately, whenever a news primarily focused on US national politics shows up, the !votes are cluttered with a number that directly ignore the rules for voting, but do seem to routinely get counted all the same. - Nottheking (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He is has not been convicted of a crime in the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above and no offence, but "global news" is not a synonym for "news in the Western world." —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We can only consider what is nominated. Very happy to consider non-Western nominations. That's not a reason to exclude nominations. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot: I think I was misunderstood. I was referring to some comments that described this as global news, so I said that being in the news in the West doesn't make something global news. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 18:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has made global news though. The ascension of Somalia to the EAC or the India tunnel collapse were region-specific too, but they got in PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only reason I can think to post the expulsion of a member of a legislature was if it tipped the voting balance from one party to another, and even then I'd be dubious. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It is far harder to expel someone from either house of the U.S. Congress due to the required two-thirds supermajority than it is from the UK or Canadian House of Commons (in the latter, from what I've read, only a majority is necessary). Santos is the first member since the Civil War to be expelled in the absence of a criminal conviction, breaking a long custom that only members who refused to resign after being convicted should be expelled. This event marks a crossing of the Godzilla Threshold; it is more of a black swan than people here are giving it credit for. And as for it being U.S.-centric, the story has gotten a lot of traction in Brazil (for obvious reasons), and I've seen in my news feed plenty of British coverage as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a chronic allergy to anything to do with Domestic US Affairs. But next week we'll happily post the Ecuadorian Netball Tournament or whatever PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not us.wiki, this is en.wiki. We look to a global aspects, not just what may be important users from one country. M asem (t) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They're as "domestic" as any other country's affairs. Since you're taking Ecuador as an example, would you post the removal of a congressperson from Ecuador? (which happened two years ago) Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it had wide impacts, yes. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case it doesn't really have wide impact, as the Republicans still have a majority. It's just very talked about, but ITN standards and journalistic standards don't fully overlap. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, we are not posting stuff about individual congresspeople. The removal of McCarthy from speaker could've been ITN-worthy, the removal of a single congressperson certainly isn't. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose; this is not particularly consequential even in the US outside of his district, as it does not materially change the balance of power, and rarity in and of itself is not newsworthy. For the record, I would oppose posting the expulsion of a member of any national legislature unless there were other circumstances making it exceptionally newsworthy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we posted Johnson's election as Speaker, which is more significant as a news story. This doesn't change a whole lot even within the U.S. as others have said. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Under the long-running precedent, selection of a Speaker (or even that of a Prime Minister in Westminster Systems) isn't considered a landmark, notable event, mostly because their formal selection is usually tied to a prior event (e.g, the general election) and thus their eventually ascension to premiership is seen as inevitable; that, for instance, the UK has a new PM or the USA has a new Speaker upon reconvening after an election isn't major news; it was expected.
 * In the case of Johnson, this was somewhat unique because it'd taken multiple ballots (and candidates) for one to emerge, but the outcome itself was ultimately predictable: "Republican majority elects Republican speaker on party-line basis." Had something particularly unusual happened (e.g, the House elected a Speaker that wasn't a sitting GOP member) that would've warranted its own event. But as it was, it was the closure of a story already posted to ITN: the ouster of McCarthy & "interregnum" that followed. - Nottheking (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose; per presidentman. The election of a Speaker is more significant than the expulsion of a regular representative. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - definitely a rare event, but not unprecedented. The impact is pretty narrow, even though his seat will probably flip and narrow the already narrow republican majority.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Rare event? Yes. Internal U.S. politics, yes. CoatCheck (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close We are deep into WP:SNOW territory here. No need for the pile-on to continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - rare but not all that important. One of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what the story's about. After all, no one has been proposing blurbs for the deaths or resignation of unknown incumbent... Those are very common. However, to expel one is an extremely strong move that is strictly political; it's the equivalent to impeachment & removal from office. That is the actual topic being discussed; to direct the argument against something else would be something other than a move in good faith. - Nottheking (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is rare, but it remains not that important, with the sum total of effect being one of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but suggest closure as it's clear that consensus will not develop This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Concur with suggest close I already voted further above, but my count put it at something like 9 support vs. 12 oppose, (once excluding zero/invalid rationale votes, such as "only affects the USA") which is far short of a "consensus." - Nottheking (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Certainly interesting, but at the end of the day the removal of a backbencher who was already persona non grata is minor and insignificant. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, agree with Curbon7, his impact is confined to at-most a national scale, he's essentially a backbencher and insignificant in the broader scope. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Curbon. Disgraced domestic politician with limited influence as a representative anyways, doesn't quite have the reach for ITN notability. The   Kip  22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted RD): Sandra Day O'Connor
Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. Incredible woman, RIP. GuardianH (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

First woman appointed to the US Supreme Court. This news is just breaking so updating is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarifying My nomination is for RD. I oppose a blurb. She was an important person, but not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Beat me to it. Perhaps some things need updating but is still a lengthy and well-sourced article. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. We shouldn't be blurbing every SCOTUS member death, and while we did blurb RBG, she had far more influence (as well as was still sitting). While O'Connor is notable for being the first women on the court and having her hand in a few key decisions, her influence wasn't as strong as RBG. M asem (t) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true, as she was at the ideological center of the Court and would be the one seeking compromise, whereas RBG being firmly on the left was frequently in the minority. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking beyond just their role as a Justice (as one can argue for any Justice that they would be important in their role on the Court, either way, but again, we should not be trying to blurb all Justices). RGB was far more influential outside of the Court. M asem (t) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think O'Connor was important both as a Justice and as a major figure in U.S. women's rights. Her decision striking down single-sex admissions in Mississippi University for Women v Hogan was a critical step in Equal Protection law. (And it was the basis for RBG's more famous, but not actually legally groundbreaking, opinion striking down single-sex admissions at VMI, United States v Virginia.) O'Connor was on TIME Magazine's list of the 25 most powerful women of the 20th Century. She was not just a Supreme Court justice, she was also an icon. RBG (to her personal surprise) became a celebrity in her last few years because some law students called her the Notorious RBG, but pre-internet female law students turned out in droves to hear O'Connor. ALKinNYC (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While the circumstances of RBG's death were more notable, I’d say that O'Connor was more notable as a justice since she was the 1st woman on the Supreme Court & the swing vote in important cases. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no signficant article update to prompt such a feature. No section on her funeral or anything like that, nothing for us to show off. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's typical to enter an RD as a blurb prior to the funeral. That being said, there are heavy edits being made and it could possibly make sense to wait a few hours for this one. I also believe she was immensely influential, paving the way for justices such as Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Not a lot but a handful of CNs and uncited statements at ends of paras. Also would be nice to see the proseline-type writing style fixed in the latter part of the article but that shouldn't stop posting RD. --M asem (t) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been updated with news on her death.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * RD only. I agree with Masem that she was not quite as influential as RBG. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quilty issues, but Support RD only. Once fixed, she is a perfect candidate for an RD. I'd needed convinced for blurb, other than be just the first woman on Supreme Court. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Let's not propose blurbs to American personalities for the simple fact of being American. There are almost 200 supreme courts in the world with their respective first female members. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * no one brought up this person's nationality as justification for a blurb. please try to contribute to the consensus with NPOV Belugsump (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD The remaining uncited statements are minimal (given the article length) and non-controversial. I oppose the blurb; while I typically endorse some US bias in blurbs due to the influence of American culture and politics worldwide, there is little evidence of that here.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD As much as my inner Arizonan wants a blurb, I have to concede that being the first woman on SCOTUS doesn't warrant one. We don't need two blurbs in a row being American politicians dying of old age. PolarManne (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - if you look at her impact compared to Kissinger's, they are probably in the same ballpark, or she might even be ahead. Simply raising the bar higher prevents contradictory outcomes. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are comparable. She was a run of the mill Supreme Court justice whose principle claim to fame was being the first woman on the court. Kissinger fundamentally changed the course of world history (for good and ill). He was the most consequential Sec. of State in US history and one of the most important foreign ministers in world history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you underrate O'Connor and overrate Kissinger. O'Connor was the pivotal vote on a number of issues and was in office for over 2 decades while Kissinger was only SoS for 4 years. - Indefensible (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those four years had a lot of impact that we are still feeling to this day, especially in the Middle East and in particular Israel. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't really just compare the offices held. Kissinger wasn't your average Secretary of State, just like RBG wasn't your average Justice. For O'Connor, while being the first woman on the court was an achievement, I don't think she rises to the same level. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, she was important but not enough for a blurb. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb The article has 2 CN tags, which should be rectified first, but it's in pretty good shape otherwise. We didn't blurb Dianne Feinstein, and I think O'Connor's impact is similar to hers. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article looks good enough. Weak support blurb Since she was the first female Supreme Court justice in the country's history. I'd support a blurb for a first female justice on any supreme court/high court of any nation. Her tenure also oversaw some landmark decisions as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support RD and blurb O'Connor opened the highest court in the United States to women, a truly enormous event in one of the most influential nations in the world, at a time when women's roles were extremely limited, both in the U.S. and globally. It was a huge deal. If you question whether this is worthy of international coverage, note that her death is currently on the front pages of El Pais, The Guardian, Le Monde, etc. That her death comes near another high-profile civil servant should be irrelevant. Girona7 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb I don't think this rises to the level of a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - First of all, article looks good to go. The fact that O'Connor was the first woman on the Supreme Court and had several notable opinions during her tenure (namely Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among others) would lead me to believe she had enough long-term significance to warrant a blurb.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support and blurb – First woman on the highest court in the USA. I second what User:Girona7 wrote above. Missvain (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Article is good to go, and I think that her being the first women on the Supreme Court makes it very noteworthy, like what User:Girona7 wrote. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - This does not rise to the level of importance we should expect to see for a blurb. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb, support rd - not so widely covered as a death to merit a blurb imo. think the article fine at this point too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb - Reviewed article, and it looks to be in great shape. While she was a significant figure, she wasn't very transformative in her field (a threshold that "first woman" falls short of) which is generally the requirement for a an ITN blurb for a death after leaving said office. (dying in office is unusual, and much more likely can merit a blurb, as the death itself has serious ramifications, as was the case for Justice Ginsberg in 2020) As it stands, definitely doesn't merit a blurb, but does seem ready to speedily post to RD: a good job to everyone who worked to ensure the high quality of the article! - Nottheking (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb, per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing ready tag There's still at least one CN, one unsourced paragraph, and the list of the notable decisions she was involved needs sourcing as well. --M asem (t) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per all above. The   Kip  22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD per above consensus and my general policy of opposing all RDB This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb, article meets standards, old woman dies. JM (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb but I've added an altblurb that highlights her significance in case this somehow makes the blurb, although this would definitely make a weak DYK when/if it becomes a GA. snowball's chance in hell of failing RD, could we post that rn? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one don't like posting bios where the date of birth is uncited.  Schwede 66  00:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66 I have cited the DoB. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was beaten to posting this.  Schwede 66  00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * She's fabulous, her story was very inspirational personally for me and other young women, but "first woman on SCOTUS" probably doesn't raise her to the level of global significance needed for a blurb. Of course support RD once any quality issues are addressed, that should go without saying. Valereee (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD It looks good enough for RD, though it could use improvement with a few more citations and rewriting "Activities and memberships" to be less PROSELINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it needs "a few more citations" it wasn't ready to be posted. As I pointed out, the section about the major decisions she was involved in is mostly unsourced, and that really should be sourced. M asem (t) 01:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb&mdash;The thing that makes the passing of Sandra Day O'Connor different from that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the fact that RBG died while she was still a sitting justice, at a time when her absence from SCOTUS would effectively ensure a conservative supermajority. SDOC died of old age 18 years after she retired from the bench; it is far less consequential. On the other hand, there is something to be said for being the first woman to ever serve on the most powerful court in the most powerful country. For this reason, I can't outright oppose a blurb. Kurtis (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I can't imagine we would ever blurb the death of a judge from any other country in the world (except in situations where 'death is the story'). I don't see the need to blurb this person just because they are an American judge. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a blurb. I don't see why O'Connor shouldn't have one either. 159.118.77.237 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether O'Connor was trailblazing aside, Ginsburg's death was unexpected and severely impacted the balance of power in the court. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb The first woman on the US Supreme Court, yes, involved in some important decisions as such, yes. But beyond this (and the major siginificance being attributed to the "first" aspect) I am not seeing anything convincing enough to blurb especially when this position was held more than a decade and a half ago. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)