Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2022

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

RD: Kirk Baily

 * There are a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. Many items in the filmography tables lack footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kim Jung-ju

 * Support Nominated this, not seeing your nom in this section. I've added sources where needed and added some missing information, such as the corruption scandal he was involved in. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks ready for RD. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the "Philanthropy" section, the sentence "This hospital, which is expected to complete by 2021,..." needs to be updated. Did this hospital open last year? --PFHLai (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: I've added a Korean source that says it will open in September 2022. There also seems to be some sort of naming dispute surrounding the hospital, but I don't read Korean so I don't feel confident writing about it.  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update and new footnote there, Yeeno. It's probably best to keep things simple and leave out things that are uncertain. --PFHLai (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Boggs

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheila Benson

 * Support Don't appear to be any article issues. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard C. Blum

 * Comment There is an orange tag that will need to be resolved before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dreaded "Controversy" section.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * & I've added some neutrality to it and removed some puff from it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section title "Controversy" remains, which is generally consider WP:POV (WP:CSECTION), isolating negative items into a section instead of integrating tidbits into his career or starting a balanced "Public image" section. All too often, it's just a WP:COATRACK for anything negative, without regard if WP:DUE coverage exists.  For example, I randomly looked at the Tutor Perini entry.  I don't see those cited sources supporting that this was a major controversy, other than it being brought up that his wife is a politican and the contractor did construction in countries occupied by the U.S.  Was there foul play?  How "controversial" was this?  To what extent did this impact him? No context is indicated in the existing sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should this section be removed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how this section is sourced to one source for each bit of controversy, that seems inappropriate for a BLP and would be better removed until more comprehensive sourcing can be made. --M asem (t) 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , and  Is this ready now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think having a couple of sentences noting the criticism is ok. But in general we try to avoid whole sections labeled as "controversy." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. to my above; I think the article is acceptable for posting now. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 11th Emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly

 * Do a proper nomination, then I'll support. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the nomination for them. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Depending on the outcome this may be a good reason to change the current blurb on the invasion. But as they are just meeting that itself is not newsworthy, its what they decide that will be important. --M asem (t) 14:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. A meeting in and of itself seems small in regards to the scale of this conflict as a whole. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The meeting is purely symbolic as the general assembly has no actual power other than passing non-binding resolutions. Unfortunately, the League of Nations ... err... UN is pretty much just adding to all the hot air in the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until there is a conclusive outcome, such as the creation of a peacekeeper force (which is not likely).--WaltCip- (talk)  15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and see if anything meaningful comes out of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing It's interesting to see the details of how this works (or doesn't work).  For example, note that the Tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is still open since 1997, having failed to conclude.  It's rather like Wikipedia's procedures – interminable and ineffective – eh?  Anyway, it's the sort of thing that should go into a navigational banner or portal, now that there are so many articles about this war. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This is not about General Assembly, it is a special meeting by GA, so we 'd better wait and see what come out it. Alex-h (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Just a minor event related to the ongoing Ukraine War. STSC (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

IPCC report

 * Comment We should probably figure out what statistic people are hanging their hats on for the headline on this. "Report was released" even with something like IPCC isn't a great ITN blurb, but "6th IPCC report on impacts of climate change estimate 40% of the world's population is at risk." (scanning from bbc) would be more appropriate, but that's just a first part. And given that part 3 of the 6th IPCC is about mitigation of CC, this second part is likely more important to post than the 3rd. --M asem (t) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind adding an example of the biggest impacts, but it would mean picking one from a smorgasbord of suffering. We also need to be careful about the wording: that 40% figure refers to those considered 'highly vulnerable', with everybody being at risk, just lower risk. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That was just something I caught in a 5 second scan, obviously any stat should be vetted and carefully and clearly worded. --M asem (t) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ... in principle. Panel Co-Chair Pörtner says climate change is "a threat to human well-being." However, article's section on this report contains only 55 words of info.– Sca (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are literal threats of nuclear war while this same conclusion is getting stated for like the 4th time [with extra steps] by the same people. Technically this has already been posted on ITN at least twice, with minimal IRL impact. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The events going on in Ukraine currently do not and should not have any bearing on whether or not we post another blurb on a different topic. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely and completely irrelevant. Climate change is a long-term threat to humanity. The invasion of Ukraine, however grisly, has no bearing on this. WaltCip- (talk)  15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted the first part of this report in August 2021 and we should probably post this as well, but the problem is that the summary of this part is way to short compared to that of the previous one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the first part of this report in August 2021, we shouldn't post all 6 interim reports that are going to come from this as that's just way too much emphasis and POV on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The assessment consists of three working group reports plus a synthesis document. This is the second report. Where did six come from? If you mean the Sixth Assessment, that's a process which reports every 6-7 years; the Fifth Assessment was in 2014. Modest Genius talk 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I read it as the second part of a six part thing, my mistake. Nevertheless, no evidence that this part is significant enough to be ITN worthy, the content in the article about it is way less than the first one. If it's ITN worthy, people should improve the article to demonstrate that. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the section on the second is way too short. Article quality needs to be as good as for the first report to consider it- if there is that much to actually say on it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Add convert for the Celsius temperatures, some of us prefer the Imperial units. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, have tagged the article as needing this fix. As it's non-compliant in so many places (and can't believe the first report was posted despite lacking conversions). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The table is still Celsius only. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, this article is still in violation of MOS:CONVERT as all tables only use Celsius. We should be using both Celsius and Fahrenheit, rather than being anti-US biased by using Celsius. This should not be posted until this article quality has been fixed for all tables in the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support this briefly pushed out headlines on the war. Banedon (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Climate change should go into ongoing as it never seems to be out of the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently, support if updated. If relevant section were its own article it would be a stub. Flameperson (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've had limited time to work on this, but the relevant section is now six referenced paragraphs, which should be enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- are we going to post each of these? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is high quality, event is in the news. Checks all boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Article quality not fixed still using only Celsius in tables, which violates MOS:CONVERT. Also the images in infobox is a copyvio, as it contains 3 logos, at least 1 of which is copyrighted. We shouldn't be posting articles with copyvios on the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONVERT says, in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so, so I don't believe it is a violation. And the conversions are given in the main text; it seems excessive to demand them in the tables as well.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now after changes. Flameperson (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What was already posted earlier was enough... Tradedia talk 18:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI: A news item involving IPCC Sixth Assessment Report was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 August 2021. 2A02:2F01:F117:0:BC8F:6C46:D908:FC3C (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said in the original nomination that we had posted part 1 of the report. This is part 2 of the report, on a different topic. Please read the original nomination as to why that should be considered a separate event. We could have split them to separate articles but that seemed unnecessary. It appears this is going to go stale before reaching consensus, sigh. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also a couple of article quality questions on the article's talkpage. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support climate change adaptation extremely important Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yadlapati Venkata Rao

 * Support. No issues with the article, and seems to be a person of somewhat significance. Twistedaxe (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is long enough and adequtely sourced; Copyedited the lead and improved infobox. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added you as updater for due credit — DaxServer (t · c) 08:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint
As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs a bit of elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics (which links to three articles: the competition, the closing event, and the city of Beijing). It would seem as though there should be a link to the "Occupied territories of Ukraine" article as well, so my recommendation for new phrasing: Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This sort of discussion is usually conducted in WP:ERRORS FWIW. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we're talking a major shift of focus of the ITN blurb that should be proposed here as a new blurb. If we're talking a minor update (like death toll) that's usually at ERRORS. Additionally, at least with this specific story, the "occupied" status is very much up in the air, and thus would not be a good aspect to include in the blurb. I expect that the invasion page includes what reliable sources (not just tweets and other armchair reporters) have claimed are occupied territories. --M asem (t) 04:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose linking to Occupied territories of Ukraine as the article is not about territories occupied in the ongoing invasion but refers to a Ukrainian law that lists territories over which the country lost control a couple of years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle that we should update the blurb. And as it's the main event in worldwide news right now, makes sense for it to stay as the top news story on ITN, rather than being pushed below a story on an earthquake that has had 11 deaths. The two events are not comparable in worldwide importance. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN in the past has just "stickied" a blurb to the top of the feed, which may be reasonable for the biggest geopolitical event in a generation - Featous (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the most read articles yesterday, more than half the Top 100 had something to do with the Ukraine invasion. The occupied territory article is not one of them.  The top 5, which are each getting around a million daily views, were: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; Vladimir Putin; Volodymyr Zelenskyy; Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War.  After that, the readership spreads out across a long tail of more specific articles like the Ghost of Kyiv and Thermobaric weapon.  So, this seems to be a good opportunity for a portal but Portal:Ukraine is not keeping up. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've revamped Portal:Ukraine's "In the news" section. The static display of old news had rightly been removed, but it will now keep up with current events.  We could do more, such as adding a "Selected current topics" section, if someone is willing and able to maintain it.  (WikiProject Ukraine, if they're not too busy with more urgent matters?) Certes (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So why not update the ITN blurb itself to eliminate "the static display of old news" – ?? Why force the reader to search for something relevant and informative under the small-type titles "navigation   Main page    Contents    Current events " high on the left side of the page? Continued display of the egregiously outdated RU-Ukraine ITN blurb does not serve readers and is a loathsome  lapse in editorial judgement. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If I understand your suggestion correctly, the outdated content had already been commented out. I removed the redundant wikitext (with no visible effect) and replaced it with current news which will update itself without constant maintenance.  (This comment applies to the portal only.  I'm leaving any updates to the main page or its transclusion to others.)  Certes (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – The No. 1 story worldwide. Blurb needs updating. Suggest something like: "Russian military forces encounter widespread resistence in their invasion of Ukraine" or "Russia encounters widespread resistence in its invasion of Ukraine." AP BBC Guardian Reuters DW AlJazeera – Sca (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – It seems that the point being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out. If that's not it, then this edit suggestion is unclear in its objective. Considering that the suggestion being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out, then adding statements like "Russia occupies several territories" or "Russian encounters widespread resistance" is entirely illogical, as they don't state what's being suggested that it should be stated. Honestly and logically, what this suggestion asks to be added is that "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, triggering worldwide social repercussions". I mean, essentially that is, "disrupting the world." That's how you honestly speak about its significance, not by making up other fill-up stuff that's not you mean to point out. 85.245.162.134 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point. However, I would want an article about the "worldwide social repercussions" to link to.  Perhaps International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War?  Although the consequences and assessment section of that article could use flushing out more. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. OP's suggested blurb seems a good upgrade to current one, and given the current pace of ITN, the war isn't going to be pushed to ongoing anytime "soon" (aka: within one or two days) Flameperson (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Currently all major cities seem to be in Ukrainian hands. In any case, the situation is very fluid amid ongoing Russian–Ukrainian information war and we should be cautious about any claims beyond the current blurb. If the situation changes dramatically based on reliable third-party sources, we can reconsider. Brandmeistertalk  19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose ITN is not a news ticker, and in the comments you have various proposals of different events to emphasise (effect on Ruble, taking of some cities, experiencing resistance) and it's still early in the proposal -- future comments may emphasise Belarusian involvement, Western sanctions, stock markets crashing, or dozens of other major effects that have already happened or will happen. What if a city gets taken back? What makes any one of these factors more important than the other? I think we got the perfect hook the first time, and it not needing an update is not a problem. The underlying event here is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

President ordered Russia's nuclear forces put on high alert
Unless I am mistaking, I think this level of open declaration of threat level has not been done since the Cuban crisis. Even if nothing comes out of it, and even if the USSR did have this level of alert as recently as the 80s, I think this uptick should still be noted in the ITN. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:B19A:8EBA:F556:7C1B (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about Russia but the US has escalated above normal several times since Cuba – see Instances of DEFCON 2 or 3. The most common comparison is with Trump's "fire and fury" speech in 2017. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this is like a DEFCON1. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nuke-saber rattling. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please... DarkSide830 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please? – Sca (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Me? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 13:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would wait a bit more until it becomes clear. Right now it seems to be just putting nuclear weapons on high alert - until he either drops a nuke in Ukraine or threatens to do so openly, we shouldn’t put anything there. If he starts a global thermonuclear war I think we should just try and not die instead of updating ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think even the ex-KGB commissar now at the Russian helm would stupid enough to start a nuclear war. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of us here didn't think he'd seriously invade Ukraine either. WaltCip- (talk)  16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Russian invasion entry should be updated to include reference to this and possibly the ruble crashing as well. All would be ITN-worthy on their own. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan Super League final

 * Support The league is now a big cricket event and is covered extensively in cricketing world including the ICC itself this time. USaamo (t@lk) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN worthy, we shouldn't be posting every country's T20 league finals. I'm not a fan of posting IPL which has a way bigger international audience than the PSL. Also article quality is insufficient, match report is poorly aourced and links to lots of dab pages. Infobox violates MOS:FLAG, as "team colours" aren't needed in infobox. Background also needs a copyedit as it has some awkward phrasings. And the league stage section should give a summary of all their matches in the league stage, rather than overdetailed match reports of the two matches they previously played against each other. If article quality is not fixed, then the importance is a moot point, the support votes above don't appear to have considered article quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Joseph. Not ITNR, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't attract the same attention as the IPL, which is the only domestic T20 League I would consider significant enough to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ITNR and shouldn't be. Tradedia talk 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ITNR and shouldn't be. Tradedia talk 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonny Ramadhin

 * Comment I expanded the article by adding more sources. I think its ok for now. Abishe (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good now thanks (I support posting this now). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Filled a minor ref. Article looks good for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nick Zedd

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a database of films that can be used as a reliable source for Zedd’s films? I know IMDB isn’t ever used, but is there something similar? It may be difficult to find sources for every film of his otherwise. Thriley (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the prose unreferenced (Zero footnotes in 'Early life' and 'Personal life and death' sections. Even his death is unsourced for an RD nom?! Now, there is a footnote, with a {bare URL}, though. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)). The long, unreferenced list in the filmography section may need to be trimmed down to keep only those items that are verifiable (Selected Filmography). --PFHLai (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Antonov An-225

 * Oppose - news is spotty if it was destroyed or just damaged, and in the latter case, the potential to restore. Further, this is part of the ongoing invasion blurb. --M asem (t) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says destroyed. Twitter says confirmed by Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From the horse's mouth. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even with that confirmation, this effectively part of, and overshadowed by the current invasion blurb. It would be the wrong thing to be focusing on at ITN while there's other invasion stuff still going on. --M asem (t) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Doesn't seem especially significant in the big picture of this war. If not already done, it could be mentioned in the main article on the war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tiny part of a bigger story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would feel better if Antonov came out with a statement confirming it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN material. Not terribly impactful in the grand scope of things if we are honest. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems insensitive to focus on a plane when there's a refugee crisis and a brutal war. Jr8825  •  Talk  05:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 eastern Australia floods

 * Oppose too short and doesn't look very notable in terms of ITN at this time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 13:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A major world city crippled is not notable?--Caltraser5 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now, pending expansion of 160-word stub. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like the Sumatra earthquake, it’s not a major disaster with a notorious number of casualties. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose quality This is a quite small article that will need to be improved on to make it on the front page. 7 deaths in a region that is not usually prone to floods is a big deal. Kline &#124; yes? 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It IS a flood prone region! See 2010–2011 Queensland floods, and 1974 Brisbane flood, and several other articles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even know that. Thanks for telling me! Kline &#124; yes? 19:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality not quite there yet, but it's important to recognise that this event has pretty much usurped the extended coverage of Ukraine (at least in Australia). JMonkey2006 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a poorly named article. And a totally over-hyped event. The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. They are still restricted to flood plains, which is where floods are supposed to happen. The fact that Queensland, and Brisbane in particular, went through some appalling (non-)planning stages in its history, and allowed a lot of houses to be built on those flood plains might be the more newsworthy aspect of this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the US many major inland port cities are in floodplains like Saint Louis, Memphis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Kansas City, New Orleans, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Houston, Miami (okay that one's not inland) and Baton Rouge and the river can get tens of kilometers wide in floods. New Orleans is in a bowl that's below sea level except for the very center. In China they called the Yellow River and/or Yangtze the river in the sky or something like that, the Yellow deposited so much yellow silt that it'd build a natural groove-topped ridge and flow in the groove with the boats higher than the cities and would break out within centuries and kill hundreds of thousands of people each time. So within millennia the river would wiggle around like a snake and flood everything in an extremely flat strip cone of hyperfarmable silt up to hundreds of miles wide. Edit: Except the Shandong Peninsula and nearby high spot were too high so it would always bypass them to the left or right. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A very different situation. Most of the development I am speaking of in Brisbane has occurred in the past 50 years. The dangers were well known, but officially ignored by planners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checked on that claim of 7 deaths. Sourcing in the article is poor. It has separate sources for separate deaths. The claim of 7 is original research, apparently adding up separate claims. My own adding up only gave me 6 deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the title? It looks similar to other articles on floods. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. I live in eastern Australia, and it's hardly rained at all here for three months. The title gives a completely false impression. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it was originally named "2022 South East Queensland flood" before it was moved earlier today in a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: see this diff. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a far more accurate title, so I have moved it back. No idea what that means for this proposal. Do we rename this too? The real point is that this is NOT about as significant event as the old title implies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hilo you probably live in either Sydney or Melbourne, which is actually west of SEQ/Northern NSW, and we are farther east of you. So title of the article is accurate.--Caltraser5 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. Are you seriously suggesting Sydney is not in eastern Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sydney is on the east coast, but to many people from SEQ it is south-west of us, and the area affected by flooding is more than just SEQ, Gympie is not really part of SEQ it's part of the wide-bay burnett region and the northern rivers of NSW often experiences the same weather as SEQ does, and that's definitely not part of SEQ.--Caltraser5 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not actually discussing this. I repeat - It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you come up with a better title--Caltraser5 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We didn't (correctly IMHO) post Storm Eunice (Discussion) last week and that killed 17 people over a wider area. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I must point out that Caltraser5 has Edit warred over the title of the article being used here, and has not gone near the Talk page to discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – "Tens of thousands" ordered to evacuate, per AP. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is record breaking flooding, and so far 13 people have died. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Half a million people ordered evacuated, per Guardian. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough for ITN. Tradedia talk 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Ahn

 * Length (500+ words of prose)  Deployment of Footnotes   Formatting   Coverage : This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eleonore Schönborn

 * Support an interesting bio. Seems ready to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support more than good enough for RD, have marked as ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2022 March 2 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJMSmith (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2022 March 2 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Sumatra earthquake

 * Comment This is probably personal, but as a Sumatran (Batak) native, I'd really just suspend this in favor of raising awareness on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not that I'm opposing nominating this, but at least we can suspend until the Ukrainian invasion news item has enough main page time.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Jeromi's views noted, the article is actually really good for a recent disaster, and we haven't had an earthquake for a while. Kingsif (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Russian invasion of Ukraine will still be on the mainpage as a blurb. Realistically it won't likely rolloff to ongoing before another development results in a new nomination. Baurach86 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The invasion will still be highly sought after. We don't want accusations of "biases", hence, let the news roll. PenangLion (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being consistent with my idea that only natural disasters that cause a notorious number of casualties are ITN-worthy. And that there was a Russian invasion in Ukraine has nothing to do here. PS: and I wish the affected editors and their families are well. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I dont see the reason why this shouldnt be on the mainpage. The state of emergency has been declared in the West Pasaman Regency and there are more than 6,000 estimated refugees. If thats not a disaster worthy of being on the mainpage I dont know what is Nyanardsan (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on this, added altblurb. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose a minor quake with minor damage in a major fault zone? Not really notable. We routinely (and rightly) do not post other routine natural disasters with low death tolls and a few inconvenienced people (such as storm Eunice just last week). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Legs. Currently not widely covered on main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is widely-covered, I feel I have to say, from Reuters all the way down, but obviously nothing is beating Kyiv et al to the top spots. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wire services "print" copy for every random event around the world in the hopes to get ad reveune from eyeballs it != notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "all the way down" Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The death toll is thankfully not particularly high. I would agree if this was a slow news cycle but this isn't clearly the case, leaning towards an oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder that slow/fast news cycles are irrelevant towards whether an article should be posted on ITN or not. — Chevvin 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until full impacts are known. Not sure this measures up in an area with a history of violent earthquakes, but more knowledge on the impact can better quantify this. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted In the news, article in good shape, and we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold to meet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Picture The target article contains a couple of good pictures which we should consider. I've added the picture of a collapsed mosque to the nomination above and suggest that it be added to the main page entry too. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was already added. Stephen 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The picture was swapped at 21:11 but I started writing my post before then, taking some time to figure out where the mosque was. It's a good picture so thanks for putting it up. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lionel James

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a bit harsh, I'm sure he was a more than adequate player. Black Kite (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Landy

 * Support A great Australian. Article seems OK. But I await constructive suggestions for improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference would be good to improve. Stephen 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions. Maybe you could mark what concerns you with some cn tags please. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you not able to recognise an unreferenced paragraph without help? Stephen 04:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Forget it. Somebody else has helped here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will require significant improvement before this can be posted. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of Wikilinks in the article. Many of the tags refer to content well sourced in the articles those links take a reader to. There is already a source used at one point in the article (Other acomplishsmets) which could be reliably used to source many of the claims in the article. It is https://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0024/15828/landy.pdf This is from the University of Melbourne, a top ranking university. I seek help in making better use of that source please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This means that Wiki articles, including links to articles, cannot substitute for inline citations to sources that pass WP:RS. PROVEIT is an excellent tool for adding citations if you need help. Thank you for your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sourcing seems thin. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Article is good enough. Barely.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant improvement in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comments: Thank you for the work on the referencing. Any further work and support to get this important RD article posted, would be much appreciated. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * READY A massive amount of work has been done to bring this article up to standard. There are no cn tags left. Time to post! HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(Attention) RD: Vitalii Skakun

 * This probably falls under WP:BLP1E. Stephen 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A bridge near the Russian embassy in Prague is renamed after him, making this ">1E" now. --PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sally Kellerman

 * Clarification Saying "on M*A*S*H" perhaps suggests that it was on the TV show. In fact, Kellerman played Hot Lips in the movie that preceded the TV series. Loretta Swit, who played that character in the TV show is still alive. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some cite tags and unreferenced tables. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still a handful of {cn} tags. Filmography is largely unreferenced. The Awards and nominations section is sourced to IMDb and nothing else. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Oppose The invasion blurb is sufficient, and barring and major events to require a new blurb, it would be expected for that to fall off into an ongoing. --M asem (t) 15:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support there's no actual ITN rule that says something cannot have a blurb and also be on ongoing- it's a made up pseudo-rule that people here always try to enforce. It's an ongoing event too, so deserves to be ongoing. Let's not be bureaucratic about it, put it on ongoing now, rather than waiting a week and then making people redo this discussion for the sake of it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its actually a main page rule not to duplicate featured article links. --M asem (t) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that specifically for when a page is a Today's Featured Article or does it apply to all aspects of the main page? And is that a rule or a guideline? WaltCip- (talk)  15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its for all sections. --M asem (t) 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see what's gained by delaying this for a week.--Llewee (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Needless duplication and poor user experience are avoided. It'd be bad experience to have two blurbs in close proximity leading to the same article. And if you argue the sections should link to different articles, that'd be misleading as you're suggesting the ITN section event is different from the Ongoing section one. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The chances of this event and the surrounding circumstances drawing to a denouement by the time this blurb drops off the main page is infinitesimally small.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. It is OK to be in Ongoing, but that should wait until it falls off ITN. There's no need for duplication here. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a blurb now, when the blurb falls off it will move to Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, once the event falls off of the ordinary list. I think that a duplicate listing is fine but I think it is better to not list the same event multiple times in the same general area on the front page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So then you oppose. Don't confuse the issue.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see any argument made for what we gain by duplicating the blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Joseph2302 and WaltCip. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but wait until the blurb is pushed off by more recent events per the concerns of all of those above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose but I would take the supports above to mean that we should automatically put this one into ongoing once the blurb expires off, unless Russia pulls out of Ukraine and we return to the status quo before the blurb ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is virtually certain that another blurbable event (e.g. fall of Kyiv) will happen well before this falls off.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the addition of more links. Yesterday, the blurb was linking to 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis.  Today, it's 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Who knows what it will be tomorrow?  In Ongoing, we should have an over-arching link like Russo-Ukrainian War. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The most important event in the world today. Free Ukraine. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the war is possibly the most significant event so far this century. Bending our rules to allow two links is appropriate - though I also support updating the blurb as appropriate to keep it on ITN while the war continues. BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A blurb and Ongoing at the same time is appropriate in this case.BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no need to link to the exact same article twice. I'd be open to putting an alternative article under the ongoing section. Calidum  20:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let’s simply wait until the blurb rolls off and then move it to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. This is already on the main page. It will go back to ongoing if the blurb rolls off. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Though I'd rather see it bumped off of the ITN list before it gets added to ongoing Canuck 89 (Chat with me)  21:04, February 24, 2022 (UTC)

(Posted/Updated) Update blurb: Russia-Ukraine

 * Nom comment from the AP source: "He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a “demilitarization” of Ukraine. Putin said that all Ukrainian servicemen who lay down arms will be able to safely leave the zone of combat." Several news outlets are reporting explosions heard around major cities like Kiev and Kharkiv, e.g. CNN. Some others like the New Zealand Herald outright reports it as "Russia declares war on Ukraine". Juxlos (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian representative in the UN claims that the Russian Ambassador to Ukraine has delivered a formal declaration of war. .Juxlos (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Well, this is it. CNN and others are reporting explosions near Kiev and Kharkiv, and Kramatorsk is reported as under attack. The Kip (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - but surely needs to be stronger. "Russia invades Ukraine". "Russia and Ukraine at war". "Russia attacks Kiev". Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Support in principle, but we are in the opening moments of hostilities here. Let's get an idea of what is going on and how reliable sources are characterizing this. If they label it an invasion, so should we. We may also end up with a new article dedicated to the war, as opposed to the current bolded article that is mostly focused on the political aspects of the crisis that is likely transitioning from diplomacy to open war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The invasion is like 90 minutes old. I doubt soldiers on either frontlines are speaking to reporters at the moment. Juxlos (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Enough sources are now characterizing this as a large-scale invasion. The original blurb works for me, again based on a mountain of RS sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but wait while it seems very clear what is happening or about to happen, I share the same concerns as . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for what? CNN is reporting that Ukrainian Interior Ministry says that there are missile strikes in various places, and that the invasion has begun. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not even agencies like AFP and AP know exactly what's going on right now. All they know is that Russia is doing military invasion in Ukraine, where and how is still to be reported. No reason to rush past the agencies. Juxlos (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support initial blurb at this time there is little doubt about it now, there being literally Russian boots on the ground of Ukraine as we speak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Maybe wait a few hours to see how things play out, but definitely a defining moment of 2022, and likely will be upgraded to ongoing in the near future. I think the blurb's bluntness makes it strong enough. Jumpytoo Talk 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Bedivere (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Without a doubt, but blurb will need to be refined and made more precise. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could hardly be more direct than that. Juxlos (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not post right now, wait - Per everyone above who supports to wait, currently 4 cities are under a series of barrages. Mariupol's case is the worst, the videos provided showed the entire sky being orange. Rumors about Russian forces occupying an airport in Kyiv has spread like wildfire. Uncertainties are everywhere. Do not act hastily. PenangLion (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Heartbreaking escalation, will definitely be a defining moment of the decade, let alone 2022.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but suggest waiting a few hours given the large quantity of amateur video footage pouring out of Ukraine right now, I have no objections to posting blurb 1 to ITN now. Oppose blurb 2 as it significantly waters down the facts on the ground. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support and post now - Per above reasons in favor. 2603:8000:6700:C5F:8BF:3CF4:4D41:1B0D (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, with a short delay for the basic facts to become settled. However, modify standard ITN procedure to use a full sized blurb (similar to one used by TFA) so that we can provide an effective summary of the situation rather than having to settle for "Russia invades Ukraine" - the global significance of the situation warrants such a change. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 over the other current options. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick reminder that Wikipedia is not a newspaper/ticker. There is no rush here. This is unquestionably going to be posted. Let's get it right and, if possible, maybe something with some substance beyond a screaming headline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There we go, per Ad, wait until confirmed reports surface. We have no idea the actual situation down there. PenangLion (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved to support per my above comment near the top. This is clearly a large scale invasion and is being almost universally labeled as such by RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've put an alt blurb to state exactly what Putin has said. Yes, most Western sources call this an invasion, but per Ad Orientem above, we've already got part of this story in ITN, lets make sure it is covered neutrally. --M asem (t) 04:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair, but make sure that the admin is alert. Reports are coming in of Russian landings as far away from Donbass as Odessa - that's a full invasion, not a regular military operation. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not going to lie, the alt blurb is incredibly vague for people with little to no context ("announcing military action" is very different from launching an unprovoked, full-scale military invasion of a sovereign country). It also gives an unnecessary amount of weight to the Russian nationalist narrative (WP:Mandy). Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt as the blurb as that's the most direct confirmed info we have, further information can be added in the article as needed. ansh. 666 04:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO a combination of the alts would be ideal here to prevent it from being too short. ansh. 666 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt as we are not a mouthpiece for propaganda, and independent reliable sources are universally describing this as a Russian unprovoked attack on Ukraine, not the reverse or whatever it was that the Russian delegate was spouting at the UNSC meeting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the same time, we can't jump ahead of RSes to call it an invasion, either. There's not a lot of exactly what's happening yet beyond reports of explosions and gun fire, so whether an invasion has actually occurred (now) is unclear. --M asem (t) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt as it reflects Putin's POV, rather than NPOV. This is why I believe a full sized blurb is needed, to provide a complete summary of the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ANY BLURB JUST POST IT WHAT THE HELL, also Daikido (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Just woke up WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON???? Daikido (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose alt That's effectively re-spouting Russian propaganda. The Kip (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, news sources so far are using "military operation" for the time being so unless you want to call them Russian propaganda outlets. Mellk (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb or wait until we have information for a more specific blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. It's succinct and accurate. The argument for waiting is basically "well Putin just said he would invade Ukraine, but all we have now is credible reports of a whole lot of aistrikes and sketchy reports about the amphibious operations in Odessa, so we don't truly know if there's an invasion." In other words, pointless pedantry. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support announcement of invasion, OPPOSE alt as repeating pure Russian propeganda and WP:FRINGE.  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment re: alt - it doesn't really matter that it's "Russian propaganda", reliable sources are reporting that that's what Putin said. We aren't claiming in Wikipedia's voice that what is going on is that (much as the news outlets aren't either), just that Russia is claiming that that's what's going on. Besides, the article itself has more than enough context. ansh. 666 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What about a combination of the two? "Putin announces blah blah. Western sources label it an invasion." or such? 70.172.194.25 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A "military operation" in Ukraine by Russian Armed Forces is, by definition, an invasion. Unless the military operation involves the largest vodka drinking contest in known human history. Juxlos (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Very much in the news right now and it is international. Very surprised this hasn't been updated yet. I have seen US "breaking news" be added to ITN faster than this. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When someone dies the wording is unambiguous and the article is easy to update. Not so for an invasion. Juxlos (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Russia's definitely attacking Ukraine & it looks like it's an invasion. I oppose the 1st alt blurb & have added a 2nd alt blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 which I just added and is the way the intro sentence of the article is phrased. This is an invasion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NYTimes headline is "Russia attacks Ukraine". LATimes headline is "Putin orders attacks on Ukraine". AP headline is "Putin announces Ukraine military operation, explosions heard". There are plenty of reliable sources for there being an active attack. The current blurb about "deploys troops to the region." is out of date. --GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is some posturing, all. Since yesterday, when it (apparently) became inevitable that this would happen, I have been asking myself what we would have done when Hitler invaded Poland. And, if that would have been a shambles of a response, what we would have liked to have done. I mean, throw out COVID, Russia has outstaged that. Do we hastily post a benign "Russia attacks Ukraine" line and leave it? Do we start a new article, separating the, er, new war from the 2014-present and 2021-present tensions articles, and post that as updates? Do we list the main cities as they fall or repel? Do we start a box? Do we, on the backend, siphon off part of the current events and MILHIST, those dedicated nerds, projects and ask users we trust to basically focus on this coverage for us? I know the mad scramble of current events articles, and am a little terrified of the collision of war and the internet age, where nothing is real until you've updated your status about it (Wikipedia, of course, included). This is, obviously, urgent, but in trying to find a blurb to agree on, nobody seems to have asked what it should say, what the history book headline will be. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is much support for it, but I see it much the same way; a simple short blurb isn't sufficient, and we should instead write a full sized blurb that temporarily replaces the current content of ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I considered leaving the previous blurb on the Russian recognition of the breakaway republics up instead of just updating it as an IAR way to provide context for the invasion blurb, but decided not to break SOP. Of all the things to have two concurrent blurbs/an oversized blurb, full blown war in Europe would be it. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an extend blurb above. Will need extensive editing if there is support for posting it, and I don't mind editors doing that; I'm adding content regarding the international reaction now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a simple "Russia invades Ukraine" is fine for now, but since this story is likely to develop (more details from what has been attacked already, potentially there could also be a ground invasion, etc.) I'd support an extended blurb like this in that case. We could also do a "Russian invasion of Ukraine" banner with links to Russo-Ukrainian war, Donbas war, buildup to invasion, DPR and LPR, any others? Davey2116 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We couldn't even update our one-line blurb without a discussion this big. How on earth do you expect something that long and detailed would remain accurate for so long as an hour? —Cryptic 07:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides that,, the ITN box can probably only fit about four complete sentences. Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any kind of special intervention needed. The self-organizing military and event projects will do just that, as for "the headline" newspapers will handle that with the historical record justifying which stuck. Gotitbro (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair, though we are in an unfortunate position where we are outpacing newspapers and users still demand catchy titles - I advocate against coining, of course. What I meant was that there are the most stoic broadsheets that use lines like "Russia invades Ukraine", and the most extreme tabloids that write things like "COMMIE PUTIN personally MURDERS innocent Ukrainians, including WOMEN and CHILDREN, in the worst WAR in all of EUROPE this CENTURY!" and obviously we are not going to get close to that example, but there is a happy medium (skewed broadsheet) that includes some detail without hyperbole, rather than just taking a bland detached position. Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted ALT3 per overwhelming consensus here. Discussions on the precise wording can continue, but "invasion" is widely used by reliable sources.. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Even simply Russia invades Ukraine would suffice here. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment AP literally says "Russia attacks Ukraine". Doesn't get any more clear than that. Therefore support current blurb for now. We can update it later if it's needed. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support, shocking and horrible. I wish Ukraine solidarity and the best, they don’t deserve this. BastianMAT (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support, quite a shocking and surreal turn of events. As per above, I am genuinely mortified that this has occurred. Wishing nothing but the best to Ukrainian Wikipedians, and the Ukrainian people, in this difficult and challenging time. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing As I write, the previous blurb about the Donbas has been replaced by "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine." The trouble with this is that it's not stable.  The target article started with an edit war over its very existence and there are still massively disruptive edits like this and so the quality of the article is quite uncertain.  The situation seems quite fluid and the launch is obviously just the start of something.  But we've had an article, Russo-Ukrainian War, since 2014 and this seems to be the latest phase in this conflict.  Our instructions say that "The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time."  As we can expect many developments and updates, we should put this back into Ongoing with a link to the broadest article. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Russo-Ukrainian War is too large by now to accommodate the latest events, so this is a rightful WP:SIZESPLIT and should remain blurbed as such. This phase of the war is intense and serious enough to have a separate article. Brandmeistertalk  09:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This asks for some flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking. I support the blurb, but we can do better. What we need is a box, which not only gives the blurb (with its one link); but with a "for background on this, see: Russo-Ukrainian War for the situation since 2014, 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for the build-up to the invasion, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic for the disputed territories, and War in Donbas for the situation prior to the 24 February invasion". Give people easy, direct access to the major articles surrounding this invasion and giving background to it, which is the thing we should be good at (more so than the immediate "what happens now"). Obviously the format and the suggested articles need tweaking, but this is what the readers want right now, and this is what we as an encyclopedia can and should offer them. Fram (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Such an approach would be sensible. Looking at the top views indicates that our readership is going to about 20 different articles for this topic.  What they are not reading now in significant numbers is our article about the Superbowl as that happened over a week ago.  We can give up space from such stale blurbs to give more space to this crisis, as we did for Covid. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need. We don't want or need up to 20 (or more) articles linked from the front page, when our readers can go to one article, and then access whichever others they might want from there.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Update image to File:War in Ukraine (2022) en.png Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's illegible at MP scale. War in Ukraine (2022) en.png <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support changing image to something related to this blurb. I also agree with that we should have more links in the box since many people will come looking for that information (for reference, this is what the COVID-19 banner looked like in July 2020. Regards  So  Why  12:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * COVID directly affected every reader, and thus the box was deemed essential to make sure every reader was alerted to it. This event has major impacts but does not directly impact every reader. Making sure that a blurb or ongoing is in ITN is important but a box won't help in the same way. --M asem  (t) 13:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support changing image to something related to this blurb, but Oppose other suggestions to do much more at this time. It's currently an important event, hence the need for a related image. But it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will be as important as COVID, let alone as Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. It might of course eventually lead to nuclear Armageddon (in which case nobody will be around to criticize us for inadequate headlines). But that would be an unexpected surprise, given that the West has said its own troops won't be involved. It seems more likely that it will be just the latest of a long series of such Russian or Soviet actions (Finland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, and probably many others that I don't remember) and I'm not aware that anybody is saying 'Wow, Wikipedia ITN really messed up in 2008 and 2014 by failing to have banner headlines announcing the start of World War 3". We can leave that sort of thing to other kinds of media. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the blurb as it is currently written. I'm not in favor of taking neutrality to the point of pure ignorance of what is actually happening. WaltCip- (talk)  13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Per Nfitz, Davey2116, Juxlos, support Alt4, which says all that needs to be said at this pt. "Launches" is unnecessary, redundant, and seems to inject a vague whiff of uncertainty about whether this is in fact an invasion – which all RS sources say it is. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 It would sound better, as Russia officially LAUNCHED an invasion of Ukraine. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We generally use present tense verbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – NYT headline: FIERCE FIGHTING ACROSS UKRAINE – Sca (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Late Thurs. coverage: Antiwar protests in Russia – 1,600 reported arrested.  – Sca (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antonietta Stella

 * She has been described as the last Italian soprano legend from the 1950s and 1960s, Scala, Metropolitan Opera, all the big houses, with a focus on Verdi's suffering heroines. - We had an article with one "source" which was the copy of the GSL, and covered only half o the text. So it took a while. As I write this the recordings still have no reference, but that's more a question of patience, - a recording is a recording and will show somewhere. Please check the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * update: the recordings shown are now referenced, - there could be more but I need a break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist)

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted with fixes. --PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: The Amazing Johnathan

 * Oppose correctly orange tagged as needing more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anna Karen

 * Support - no referencing issues. Good to go. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and ARRRRRFFFUUUUUUUUURRR!!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Suisse secrets

 * It's not 100+ billion documents, that's the USD total for the ~30,000 clients. Stephen 02:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have now corrected (after more than 10 hours). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Reword as I haven't seen that figure mentioned but is definitely notable enough. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, we posted both Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, which were similar types of leaks. However, the article is absolutely too short at the moment. --Tone 09:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Given the size of the leak and the names on the bank's client list, this is significant news which merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose quality - article length is 1323 bytes at the time of this message. More background would be needed. Juxlos (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Support on significance.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as simple existence does not imply guilt, which is not the position WP should be taking. --M asem (t) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. And at 211 words of text, article is too stubby. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, oppose on quality per Juxlos. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tending to oppose first for quality. Secondly, I don't think it is comparable to the Panama, Paradise and Pandora papers. At least for now the notable people who have been named are not many, not to say remarkable less than five. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Sca, pretty short article for something notable as such. PenangLion (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs expansion, also names are listed in the article but subsequent details are not mentioned in many of the bios which should be added. Gotitbro (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too short article for such a claim. Alex-h (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What exactly is the notability of this "story"? As it currently stands, the only proposed blurb, "The Suisse secrets,  documents relating to US$108.5 billion of offshore investment, are leaked" is about (1) the existence of bank accounts and (2) the leaking of information about those bank accounts. The fact that rich people have bank accounts in a Swiss Bank is not news. What makes a Swiss bank account more notable than a bank account in other countries? Chrisclear (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The notability is that multiple international criminals and dictators have billions of likely laundered money in this Swiss bank, and that it potentially provides evidence of the Vatican laundering money, which is explained in the first sentence of the first link OP posted. It could be worded better. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've highlighted three problems with the proposed blurb. (1) The blurb only mentions the existence of bank accounts, and not the allegation of money laundering. (2) As you wrote "likely" laundered money, but not proof. (3) "potentially provides evidence" of money laundering, but not proof. Chrisclear (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The other significance is that some whistleblower went and leaked such details, which is why a lot of the previous leaks (especially Paradise Papers, as I recall) were dramatic, too. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right that it's "dramatic", but breaches of privacy are fairly common, and it's unlikely that this story would be posted solely due to the privacy breach. I can't help but notice your use of the word "whistleblower" - yet the blurb as it stands (1) does not contain any specific allegations of wrongdoing by the account holders, nor (2) proof/findings of wrongdoing by account holders. The only wrongdoing contained in the blurb, ironically enough, is the privacy breach by the "whistleblower". Chrisclear (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Rehman Malik

 * Comments: This wikipage is tagged with {unreliable sources|date=January 2017}, {anachronism|date=February 2020}, and a few {cn}, too. Please fix. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Once quality issue is addressed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judith Pipher

 * Support Decent length and career coverage, with full sourcing. Joofjoof (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Lanegan

 * Support A quick scan shows no sourcing issues (will double-check, of course). Gutted.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Fuck. That's the worst one since Bowie. Just trying to source everything now. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am likewise experiencing Methamphetamine Blues right now myself. I was just about to put you both down as updaters. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was playing Scraps at Midnight only the other day. Damn. Never got to see Screaming Trees live, but did have the pleasure of seeing Mr Lanegan a couple of times.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never saw ST live either, but I did see him perform with QOTSA more than a few times. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Saw ST once whilst very drunk at a festival, but saw him twice with the Gutter Twins and around 4-5 times solo. Last time was the tour with Duke Garwood in 2018. Oh, man. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the collab section needs a few sources and a cruft-tidy.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking much better now! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. I'm on my phone, but I can't see any major issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Croll

 * Oppose The provided death source does not work, and I cannot find another. Also, article directly cites a marriage certificate. Joofjoof (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The given obit works. At 1290 characters, though, the article is currently a stub. Joofjoof (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, at 228 words it's rather too stubby. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub with debatable sourcing (not just marriage cert). Presumably obits will come along that can fill it in. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Close but still needs a bit of expansion. The use of the marriage cert follows WP:PRIMARY. TJMSmith (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Separatist republics

 * This is the kind of news that moves the Ongoing to a dedicated blurb. However, the article is not ready. --Tone 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Substantially in agreement with Tone. Support pending improvements to the article. Btw, the proposed image has an error, as the apparent salient on the border of the two oblasts is far from being that deep - it used to be so until February 2015, but when Ukrainian forces lost the battle of Debaltseve, it became much shallower. Use Openstreetmap for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — Globally significant news. The next step would be deploying Russian nuke missiles in these republics. Be afraid. STSC (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is improved and remove from ongoing. This is clearly something concrete in the pissing match.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- and added an altblurb.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a de jure Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even though Donetsk and Luhansk have been under DPR and LPR control since 2014, they are still legally part of Ukraine and as such, the presence of Russian forces there is blurb-worthy news. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — as per STSC = Emperor Putin rips up the Minsk Protocol. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – BIG news. This will be the No. 1 story for days, weeks, if not longer. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Huge news. This is an (almost) superpower recognizing an independent country CR-1-AB (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle clearly noteworthy news, however a blurb will have to dance that important line of neutrality between the two sides, and simply stating what one side said it did is not neutral. The two altblurbs do an okay job of that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt-blurb 3 is the best-worded blurb and should be the one that is used. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title of the nominated article seems tendentious – "International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic..." is not what has happened, is it? It mainly seems to amount to more diplomatic posturing and fist-waving and there's not much change on the ground.  There will be much more of this as the other international countries have their say and this could still take years to work out.  The current ongoing entry still seems best to cover this latest development. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, who cares about Ukraine, a "far-away country of which we know nothing," as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938? – Sca (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was Czechoslovakia that Chamberlain said that about. Certainly not his finest hour. WaltCip- (talk)  00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." – Sca (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Since we all care so much, we should not be presenting this as a done deal, as the nominated title suggests. This is clearly a disputed and ongoing situation and the final outcome is far from clear.  This issue has been ongoing for 8 years now while the latest crisis was the threat of a general invasion of the Ukraine which still has not happened yet.  We should await further developments, while maintaining the ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the first direct incursion of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil (that we know of) since the invasion of Crimea in 2014. We can update the blurb if necessary, but for now, this is a significant occurrence regardless of the whole situation being unsettled. The Kip (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read Donetsk People's Republic, you'll see that much of the population has been quite integrated with Russia for years now – the people there get Russian passports, pensions, &c. So, this is more of a political development than a military one because the population already considers itself Russian and the Republic already has a functioning government and administration.  Here in the UK, we're very used to such separatist and devolution issues in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Brexit, Gibraltar, &c.  Life goes on... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what's happened now is that the ongoing entry has been moved to a blurb section with some details of the latest escalation. There's a couple of issues with this.  One is that the bold linked article has years of history and proseline so it's hard for the reader to pick out the latest developments.  And, as the situation is still quite fluid, daily updates are likely to be needed.  And that's what ongoing is for.  Compare with the Covid-19 ongoing entry.  In the UK, the big news is that the Queen has got Covid while the government has announced the ending of all restrictions.  These are very much in the news but ITN just lumps it all into the ongoing entry.  But, of course, it doesn't much matter because our readers make their own choices regardless.  The crisis article is down at #41 in the top read list while numerous other articles are getting more readers – Ukraine (#3); Putin (#6); Donetsk People's Republic (#7); Donbas (#11); &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — Probably the most concrete development in this story for a while, also I think the sending in of troops should probably be included. Llewee (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis seems like it should be the bolded article, and &sect;Recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics by Russia looks sufficiently updated. The real news isn't Russia's recognition of the territories but its use of that as a pretext for invasion, which the International Recognition article doesn't even mention. —Cryptic 00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Redoct87 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The event is significant, but the headline is very misleading, and plays into Russian propaganda. Something along the line of Russia invades eastern Ukraine or Russian troops enter Ukraine. Surely the invasion of Ukraine is more significant than the legal shenanigans. This is a bit of a moving target though, as the invasion started after the article was nominated. The proposed target seems inappropriate as well - either 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or Russo-Ukrainian War. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With rewording and retargeting, I no longer oppose. Though I don't know why the wording is "deploy troops into the region". There's a simple word for deploying troops into a foreign country - invasion. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where NPOV tone and voice has to be careful; we cannot take sides here, and while most Western gov'ts are considering it an invasion, Russia is calling it something else. We should not take either position, so stating that Russie deployed troops is neutrally worded. The article can go into detail on reactions. --M asem (t) 05:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely "invasion" (or "occupation") is neutral point of view (if it isn't, we need to rewrite some WW2 articles). Non-NPOV would be to "enhance the ethnic cleansing". Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "invasion" is the POV term from those countries that have denounced this action like the US and France, but as there is nowhere close to universal outrage over this, we can't use that term in wikivoice. --M asem (t)•
 * How can it possibly be A POV issue? Russia has illegally occupied sovereign Ukrainian territory, again. Describing it as anything other than an 'invasion' of a sovereign country in total breach of international law has serious NPOV issues in my view. Feel free to disagree of course, But this isn't just about how the US or France views it. 91.96.161.13 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anywhere in the Anglosphere where there isn't universal outrage? It's far more than 2 countries! Good grief, even the Germans have declared sanctions, despite their reliance on Russian gas. Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be impartial and dispassionate in tone. Calling it an invasion at this point would be favoring one view of the events. Over time, that is how this might come to be seen, but per RECENTISM we should be far more careful on initial language. --M asem (t) 23:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel the target article is not the most appropriate here, though taking into account the mention of the balance between the two sides of the stories. Using that downplays the invasion aspect significantly. Perhaps a second article is needed here. --M asem (t) 00:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed ALT3 and another target article.  starship .paint  (exalt) 00:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support at the very least, this is equivalent to the Crimean annexation in 2014. At worst, this is the start of a full invasion. Juxlos (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support alt 3 albeit not a full invasion yet considering the separatism/quasi-states, Russian troops entering internationally-recognized Ukrainian territory is a significant-enough escalation to merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 as per above. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 Obvious major development. Alt 2 appears to be factually accurate and w/o any editorial language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support but "officially" is redundant. Recognition is inherently an official govt decision Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support it's a hot news.--Nickispeaki (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3, Oppose other blurbs The main article here is the crisis, and it is much better trafficked and edited than the articles about either of the Republic articles. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Incredibly significant news in the world. While WP:NOTNEWS is in action, you cannot deny how important this is... Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment with all these supports, and only 2 opposes (one of which was on technical grounds instead of notability grounds), I'm fairly sure consensus has developed. Juxlos (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Marking as Ready. 64.231.158.212 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -- why are you spelling "recognizes" the British way? All proposed blurbs spelled it the American way. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The target article (the crisis) appears to be British English, so the blurb following that makes sense. --M asem (t) 05:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair point. 'Twas just curious. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- is there a reason the blurb says "deploys troops" instead of "orders its military into"? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, aligned to the article, and the same thing in fewer words. Stephen 07:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This happened overnight so I didn't see it before it was posted. I like the current 'deploys troops' wording, which seems neutral. Well done on settling on appropriate wording. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support curent blurb. Oh boy, here we go again. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments - I noticed the ongoing section for the crisis seems to be de-listed. PenangLion (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The target that was ongoing is now a blurb. We usually do not include both a blurb and ongoing. --M asem (t) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – I agree with Masem that we must maintain an NPOV tone. However, the phrase "deploys troops to the region" states something that's been going on for months. Granted, "orders its military forces to enter their claimed territory" in Alt2 turns out to have been an overstatement, but perhaps we could go with something like "positions its forces near their claimed territory." – Sca (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. I think the blurb as it stands is fine, and we should remain with that one. It's not inaccurate to say that they deployed troops to the region, that's a factual and neutral way to put it. Bringing in terms like "claimed territory" adds a degree of editorializing in, which as ever should be left to the article... It's near impossible to give all details of a complex situation like this one in a single sentence, so we shouldn't try. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, let's delete "claimed" from my suggested fix and go with it. (See above change.) – Sca (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: In the existing blurb clause " and deploys troops to the region," and erroneously implies that they began sending troops there only after recognizing Donetsk & Luhansk. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support So much for the "international dick rattlers fading away over time".--WaltCip- (talk)  13:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – FYI, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is quoted in Der Spiegel today as saying, "Russian President Putin is now waiting for a provocation "to provide a pretext, possibly, to occupy the entire Ukraine." This topic isn't fading away. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are significant discussions on sanctions. The news will probably be relevant for at least a few months, and again, do we really need to delist the event from Ongoing when a blurb related to this article is posted? Can we do both? PenangLion (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why duplicate it? – Sca (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still an ongoing event, and the crisis's article is one of two covered for the blurb. PenangLion (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When the current blurb scrolls off, we will likely read it back as ongoing. We just have limited space so avoid duplication of links and stories. --M asem (t) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The presence or otherwise of this story in Ongoing doesn't really affect the overall space, to be fair, since Ongoing exists on its own line anyway. So it's more of a content decision. I can see the argument that it's confusing for readers to have the item there one day and gone the next, just as the situation has heated up. Presumably most will see that it's now a bolded story above, but I do think there is some case for restoring it to Ongoing now. Probably I'm neutral, leaning mild support for that suggestion.
 * (Unsigned.)


 * Comment – AP update: "Russian lawmakers on Tuesday authorized President Vladimir Putin to use military force outside the country – a move that could presage a broader attack on Ukraine." – Sca (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until troops are sent in to change anything. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In the event of any possible arguments over desired changes to the blurb, I'd like to preempt and say I agree with the consensus on the current blurb. This feels like the best way to describe the situation (particularly considering that troop deployments to sympathetic break-away states are different than just outright invasion). DarkSide830 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Or at least that's how it was yesterday; now Russia is actually invading Ukraine. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 03:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Late Tuesday coverage, much of it about sanctions:      – Sca (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I understand why its removed from Ongoing while at the top of ITN, but I think it should be put back as soon as its moved down. If anything the situation has become more relevant. jonas (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It will be added back one it's rolled off, ITN just doesn't have the same article linked twice in the box. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  01:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Why did this just disappear after a few days, while certain other, recent, sporting, items spend nearly a fortnight on here? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Farmer

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mekapati Goutham Reddy

 * Support Looks long enough and adequately sourced for RD. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage. Political career section only lists election results without much if any information about what he accomplished in his positions or political views.  Spencer T• C 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (cc Ab207) — DaxServer (t · c) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spencer ✅ with the help of @Ab207. Added Ab207 to updaters list for due credit — DaxServer (t · c) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 13:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Herwartz

 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support Article looks good. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Franz Grave

 * Support nicely updated. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Shakuntala Choudhary

 * Support Article is well cited and long enough. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Fakescientist. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Question : Since you posted "Have not had a chance to work the article. Will get to it later...", there has only been one non-bot edit in the article's edit history. Do you still plan to add more to this wikibio, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamal Edwards

 * Support Decent article solidly referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony

 * The stadium picture wasn't previously posted, we had a photo of the opening ceremony. It is a 11-year-old photo though, illuminated for some different event. Stephen 12:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, my fault. I failed to recall on that image probably because the general coverage of these Olympics in pictures is extremely poor.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The blurbs link to the opening ceremony, not the closing ceremony. Clumsy copying. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a very lame reason to oppose an ITNR item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination was made before the event had taken place (and the page was started 6 years ago!). Even now, the first section, Theme and Concept, is written in the future tense, has no source and makes a vague prediction that "somewhere during the closing ceremony will re-create a moment...".  The blurb errors indicate that the article requires much careful and close checking to avoid such blatant errors.  The main point is the Olympics is over but, as ITN has been showing it as ongoing for some time now, it does not seem necessary to do more than remove that entry.  And that has been done. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still not a reason to oppose the ITNR. If the article can be improved in time, it still qualifies as ITNR. Just that it has a long way to go and if its not improved in a few days, I think it would be pointless to post it with the ongoing already removed. --M asem (t) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the second section, which is just one sentence, "Dancers lightened the emblem as Frank Mortenson's brand new record for the 2022 Olympics, "It's a Lovely Day Tomorrow" written originally in 1938 by Irving Berlin, was played." Again this has no source and I can't find any evidence that it's actually true.  The word "lightened" is ungrammatical.  And Mortenson is a red link now.  If the song was written in 1938, it's not "brand new".  There's no quality here; not even close.  And the ceremony didn't make any flag-waving point about Norway did it?  From what I saw, it was Italy that got most of the attention as the next host country.  If we blurb about Norway then that would be misrepresenting what happened at the ceremony. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why as noted below, if we do post, the blurb should just be "The Olmypics closed" and not recognize any record. And yes, the target article is woefully out of shape for posting. No one is disagreeing on that. But if it got into shape, it is an ITNR to be posted. --M asem (t) 17:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I always strive for a brief blurb without mentioning the most successful nation but without any success so far. I, therefore, proposed three different blurbs this time so that everyone is happy and no objections are made on those grounds.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the ceremony in 2018 was not posted due to similar quality issues. There is therefore no guarantee that this will ever meet an acceptable level of quality.  As the event was mostly a formality, I reckon that we should move on.  The talk has been that Putin has been waiting for the Olympics to end, as the starting gun for his Ukrainian adventure.  We may soon have some real news... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder where do you get that information from and why he didn't wait until the end of the previous meeting in Beijing for his military adventure along the Black Sea.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, the day after the Olympics ends, Putin holds an extraordinary council meeting to agree to violate the Minsk treaty by tearing away two more chunks of Ukrainian territory. This timetable was planned in advance with Macron and Scholz.  That's what's in the news now.  Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking back on this on the following day, I see that the first two sections are unchanged; still no sources and even the howler of "lightened" is still there. There's a picture though so I checked that out.  It appears to be a copyright violation of this!  Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, record should be in blurb. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose mentioning the medal count, this is not a competition in how many medals each nation gets (at least nominally). I've now removed the link from Ongoing. --Tone 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Article 6 in Charter 1 of the Olympic Charter, which states "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.", we shouldn't highlight the achievement of the most successful nation. However, those supporting it have always formed a majority in such discussions and we regularly post an extended blurb, so it'd have been unwise for practical reasons not to propose an extended blurb from the beginning. As for the record, we posted the previous record of 14 gold medals set by Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but oppose both blurbs, and any blurb listing country with the most medals. We had this debate for the Summer Games last year, and we don't post the country with the most medals, as it is inconsistent with the Olympic charter quoted above. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what, perhaps it's more probable to get the most successful nation out of the blurb this time, given that it's not the US and people probably won't fight to get it there in order to show the superiority of their country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, oppose on quality for now, as it needs expansion. So many pointless empty sections that need information added. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Alt We did it for the opening, so this is significant enough for ITN. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 21:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still dreadful though, you shouldn't be supporting unless article quality is sufficient. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle for importance, but the article quality doesn't want itself to be included in the ITN. Time isn't really an essence, maybe the article could be repaired in another 2-3 days. PenangLion (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The closing ceremony article is an utter mess. I would prefer bolding 2022 Winter Olympics, which is in much better shape and has some content summarising the actual sporting events that were held. But that needs to expand 2022_Winter_Olympics to a full paragraph, not one sentence. I also strongly prefer alt2 i.e. without stating the medal table in the blurb - the Olympics are a set of contests between athletes in specific sports, not a national ranking. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, the event definitely has the significance to be posted but the closing ceremony doesn’t have the best article quality. I would prefer if the 2022 Winter Olympics was the bolded article as mentioned before but it is a little hard to make a good blurb while doing that. If someone can come up with a blurb which has the 2022 Winter Olympics as the bolded article or the closing ceremony can be improved then I think it should be posted. <font color="White"> Hamza Ali Shah    Talk 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Easy, alt3 added. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — With link to 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony. - STSC (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Shepherd

 * Length (almost 600 words)  Footnotes   Formatting   Coverage   This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Brooker

 * Support. "And although my eyes were open They might have just as well've been closed." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Pending support - man, two proto-prog legends a week apart. The Career section has a few unsourced statements, and you'll likely get pushback on the discography not being sourced. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Floydian, albums all sourced. Singles more tricky, as discogs.com and 45cat.com are deemed "unreliable". It would be very useful if you could tag anything that you think still needs a source. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just one spot left in the first paragraph of the Career section that I stuck a tag on, after which consider me a support. Personally I don't believe discographies need citations because the albums themselves are verifiable by anybody. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the missing citation. Good to go now I feel. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Gary Brooker section remains unsourced. I don't have an opinion on whether that is a major issue.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, all now sourced. And no "cn" tags remaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support As of now, it looks good to me. Tradedia talk 14:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can this now be marked as ready? Can it be posted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charley Taylor

 * Length (800+ words) Use of Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PFHLai. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joey Beauchamp

 * Length (400+ words) Use of Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emile Francis

 * Length (700+ words) Use of Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: COVID-19 pandemic

 * Oppose for the thousandth time No way. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong support - Everyone knows this is ongoing. I really don't even know why people still care about covid. Remove. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Extremely strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Alsoriano. COVID is still an ongoing pandemic, and it ravages people daily. It's not like the black death, where 2 people get it every decade; it is an incredibly dangerous virus. I suggest speedy close. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose I'm assuming this was not intended as a joke. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (procedural comment) I have reverted the NAC. With a vote total of 2-4 (considering the close as a supervote) this isn't eligible for a SNOW close, and certainly is not eligible for a SNOW close by a non-admin. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I hinted that this might be reasonable a week ago. The Canada protests had consensus not to post then, and they are less notable now, so there is no reason to entertain the notion of a swap.  As far as a removal ... soon, but probably not today.  No vote as I have taken an administrative action on this topic. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the strongest terms Are you mad? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Public health officials around the world are begining to use the word "endemic". At this point COVID-19 is ongoing the same way climate change, extinction, and the Israel-Palestine conflict are ongoing. It's here to stay, and it could be a decade or more before the WHO "declares" it over but here in planet real-world life has been returning to normal for quite some time. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- COVID-19 is still a serious threat, killing thousands of people daily. Removing it from ongoing makes no sense. I think people asking why others care must have their heads in the sand. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * List_of_epidemics the AIDS pandemic has been ongoing since 1982 and has killed more than COVID-19 so we ought get it into the ongoing box too huh? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because it is not killing thousands of people daily. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What HiLo48 said. AIDS is not experiencing uncontrolled daily spread across the world. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well COVID-19 is being controlled with safe and effective vaccines. Meanwhile 100's of thousands of annual deaths from HIV/AIDS and no vaccine. Probably better if you just keep your head in the sand. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And 3,000,000+ died from COVID-19 last year. I'll tell you what, when the WHO reclassifies COVID-19 as an epidemic from a pandemic, then we can remove it from ongoing. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is still massively deadly across the world. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Millions are dying; this is a global event. It is on or near the top of the policy agenda of basically every country in some way, shape, or form. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong titanic oppose Apologies for me opposing, this is still a thing, it's not like if the news doesn't pick up, the deaths of 6 million are nothing. PenangLion (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kingsized Olympic Support Not to say it isn't still generally covered everywhere (not just news). It is, so we're not educational, we're redundant in stating the obvious. Things are happening beside protests, including policy changes, new wonderdrugs and marvelous mutations. We should open up and let them in. Mangeshkar died of COVID treatment, and she's still here, minus concurrent coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regular further observation If this was originally intended as a public safety initiative, prevention through awareness and such, that was noble. But it was clearly ineffective. See the ravaged millions in votes above for corroboration of this, if you think I'm lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Pandemic is still ongoing, this should be removed when WHO declares it no longer a pandemic. I have suspicions that the nominator is just mad because the Canadian Convey protests weren’t posted to ITN, so they’re trying to get revenge by removing this from ongoing.  Likewise if we were to be posting individual posts related to the pandemic, it would virtually clutter up the board. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This nominator didn't support posting anything about the convoy, so I suspect your suspicions are your own problem. If COVID -related noms were allowed, they'd still be subject to discretion. The important turning points would stand out and be read; better than just telling readers it still matters, for unwritten reasons, and making them click and skim for whatever new info. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - over 300,000 dead this year, around 5,000-13,000 dead per day... this is assuredly ongoing and pervasive.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I'll leave. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose many people are still dying each day from this relatively new disease. Although there are vaccines available which reduce the likelihood of death, it's important to remember that they are not as readily available in poorer countries as they are in richer countries. And even in those richer countries with high vaccination rates, there are still plenty of people still dying from Covid. Chrisclear (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Get real. Toll (6.2 million) rises every day. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covid is still ongoing and still in the news. Rhino131 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Luc Brunel

 *  Not Quite Ready Two cites needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per Ad Orientem. Also this death seems mildly suspicious. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment CN tags resolved. Kafoxe (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per additional citations. Comment I am not a fan of the word "allegedly" in the sentence on his suicide unless it is explicitly used by RS sources. It's not our place to be promoting conspiracy theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * News outlets can't typically explicitly say that someone has committed suicide without an "allegedly" until it's been officially ruled as such, and in this case, I believe the investigations are still ongoing (though I may be out of date on that). Kafoxe (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have moved on from using "committed suicide" to replace it with "died by suicide". We should use the latter imo. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Note: not Jean-Jacques Burnel) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any remaining issues with the article preventing it from being posted? Kafoxe (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been fixed up. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tom Veitch

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio needs more REFs. In particular, the Comics career section has more {cn} tags than footnotes. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Eunice

 * Support - Certainly an unusual event of this type, and it's in the news.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the need to put a weather record of a specific country in a blurb that mentions a natural disaster at European level? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adds to the significance of the storm. Higher winds than the Great Storm of 1987! Posting admin is free to amend blurb as they see fit. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need, honestly and respectfully. I would understand if it was the highest wind gust ever recorded in Europe (although I wouldn't support it either), but not when we are talking about a specific country when it's a natural disaster that affects many more nations. Also I don't recall seeing other blurbs about storms mentioning these types of records. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because we haven't done it before does not mean we should never do it. WaltCip- (talk)  19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original blurb and made that an altblurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The original blurb (now alt) is better as focussing purely on the body count is crude. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * original blurb is the one without the windspeed record for UK. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- doesn't seem that significant to warrant a blurb. Seems not notable. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems significant enough to warrant a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The wind speed was the highest ever recorded in England, not the entirety of the UK. Kline &#124; yes? 04:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual weather events are frequently featured. The alt blurb (which I prefer) should be reworded as "In Europe, seven people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured), a cyclone with gusts of 122 miles per hour (196 km/h), the highest ever recorded in the United Kingdom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not historically significant and the picture is just clouds to all but diehard meteorology buffs, no prejudice against 2021–2022 European windstorm season in Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Damage to The O2 Arena's tent caused by Storm Eunice.jpg The only other image availabe is one showing damage to the O2 Arena. If that is used, (damage to O2 Arena pictured) would be the image caption. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, but not enough to save it, especially after realizing how many Europeans have been killed by similar wind since mid-October (~62). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unusual event for that part of Europe, article is clearly good enough. Support ALT0. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Worst storm to hit the UK for almost 35 years. Unusual event, though there is a certain lack of international coverage and notability. PenangLion (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC says it's "one of" the worst.InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If "worst" means deadliest, it's tied with Storm Malik from three weeks ago (our article doesn't count this true Scotsman). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage mostly refers to wind speeds and intensity rather than the death toll. In terms of intensity, it is one of (thanks for the correction) the worst since the Storm of 1987. PenangLion (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Strongest". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. Would suggest wait per Andrew PenangLion (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb.   SN54129  11:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Ten deaths in one place would be marginal. It’s a bus crash. Ten deaths scattered over a wide area is no more than routine misfortune on any old Monday. Article is good quality. Praise for the work but it’s not quite an ITN level event. Jehochman Talk 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah obvs. Daily battering? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Comment – Widespread property damage, but RS coverage has been spotty. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not what you mean by "spotty." The storm has been widely covered by reliable sources, as you would expect from the worst storm to hit the UK since 1987. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage on primary int'l RS sites' main pages seemed thin (overshadowed by RU-Ukraine, still topic No. 1). – Sca (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ottawa number one, Rukraine, hack phooey! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, the CBC cares about Russia and Ukraine. But not this, not really. Just carries the AP copy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant event and the article looks to be in great shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original only  The wind speed record seems trivial to me, but 15 people died which is surely a significant event. But the secondary blurb mentions this, sorry, didn’t see.12.246.51.130 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's 15 out of several hundred million survivors, though, not some shared mass tragedy for anywhere in particular, like in events that people remember later. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've not seen that toll on AP, BBC, Guardian or Reuters. Nor do I see where 15 is specifically documented in the article. DW reports nine storm fatalities, two in Germany and seven elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On Sunday BBC reported 16 storm fatalities, DW 12. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Regardless, as a percentage, it's still 0.00% of those affected, connected only through posthumous world news aggregation, as a number, nothing realer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article is in good shape, but the wind speed record is trivia, and is apparently only for England and not even the whole country. Looking at the 2021–22 European windstorm season page, this storm isn't the strongest in terms of pressure difference or fastest in terms of wind speed this season. Compared to the Great storm of 1987 or even other storms this season, the level of fatalities isn't particularly elevated, and damages seem quite limited, to less than half a billion pounds  With no other civic indicators (e.g. states of emergency), I don't see the significance for posting, though this could change as the situation develops.   Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no lasting impact, media hype including the filthy habit of naming a winter storm. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unusual, but not sufficiently significant to be posted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Moderate to Fresh). Can't say I'm blown away by this nomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (gusting, occasional Strong)
 * Support Decent quality article; receiving international coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in Theory Fairly impactful windstorm, but it seems the article could use some expanding, especially in the Meteorological history section. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely powerful storm for European standards. Here we don't get many fatalities, because here we maintain our infrastructure to be able to deal with rare weather events. Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support rare European storm with an impact and death toll that would get posted almost anywhere. Article quality is fine for ITN.  Also, the oldest blurb is 9 days old, about an event that took place 14 days ago. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it was certainly a bit windy, but there were thankfully very few deaths and long-term impact limited. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Update The wind hasn't let up but it's called Franklin now. What seems to be happening is that the jetstream has formed a powerful sting jet which is driving a series of Atlantic depressions.  This is now another record – three named storms in a week – and there's more to come.  See BBC while next up is Gladys with talk of snow and tornadoes... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, I suggest wait for more updates then. PenangLion (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Boris Nevzorov

 * Not Ready Article needs expansion. Only eleven sentences of actual prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Hagedorn

 * Support, though I note that no official cause of death has been announced (AFAIK). He had stage 4 kidney cancer but was recently admitted to hospital with COVID-19. <span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;"> B.Rossow ·  talk  16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment' some election results tables are unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Committee assignments" are unreferenced, too. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * True. I just added new cn tags. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Missing refs are now resolved. Kafoxe (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Surajit Sengupta

 * Length (400+ words) Use of Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. Earlier versions of this wikipage have been deleted due to copyvio, which is no longer a concern per Earwig. --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meets minimum standards; are there domestic league records available for his career statistics? (e.g. goals scored and appearances for each team)  Spencer T• C 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to find some stats -- is there an ESPNCricinfo kind of stats database for soccer / football? If there are any databases, I am happy to have this information added. Seems like the infobox has space for this information, but, I am having some difficulty in identifying stats databases. Ktin (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging you here. Just saw your edit on this article. Seems like you might be able to help us here. Would you be able to point us to a trusted database that can help us with Surajit Sengupta's career statistics? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Usual sources such as worldfootball.net, national-football-team.com, footballdatabase.eu don't seem to have any records of the player. WikiProject Football/Links lists country-specific sources but there's no section for India. Posting a query to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football may be worth a try, perhaps experts on Indian football would respond. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be very hard to find statistics for clubs which aren't in Europe's top-5 leagues pre-2000s (and, for some countries, even pre-2010s). The article is very well written given that he was active during the 1970s, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the lack of club stats. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Tolchin

 * This wikibio with only 270 words of readable prose seems too stubby for ITN. 40 years at the New York Times summarized with a two-sentence paragraph? Then one sentence each for founding The Hill and Politico? Can more be written about his long career? --PFHLai (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai I've expanded it a bit.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion! --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as founder of Politico.  SN54129  16:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with PFHLai and Sca- for someone with such a long, illustrious career, we have very little detail in this article. As such, I don't think it meets the necessary article quality, as I don't think it meets Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. (it doesn't seem to be comprehensive at all). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more details.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is rather short, but it's Start class and sourced, so it's adequate.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Length (500+ words)  Footnotes   Formatting  Coverage  This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lorinda Cherry

 * Comment we do not have an exact date of death in the article. However, that's not required; for procedural purposes the date the death was announced can suffice.  And we no longer "sort by date of death" on the front page, so it certainly doesn't matter for that purpose.  The article certainly could be better, but is probably good enough -- it is fully referenced. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are some quotes without context in the article, such as: "Cherry's work on approximate parsing and Aho's on fast pattern search turned out to be just the right foundation for an English style-appraiser suggested by Professor William Vesterman of Rutgers. That in turn was elaborated into Writer's Workbench by Nina MacDonald and others in the Human Performance Engineering Department."[5] Who said this quote? Should be paraphrased into the article not quoted directly.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this. I have rewritten the paragraph and added attribution for the remaining quote. Joofjoof (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum standards, referenced.  Spencer T• C 21:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGF'ing LWN.net is RS. --PFHLai (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Smethurst

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gail Halvorsen

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. Article is justly graded GA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Saw this earlier in the news, and confirming the article's quality is good for posting. --M asem (t) 03:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article's subject is notable, article is in good quality. Keep on RD. Not sure about blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chennaveera Kanavi

 * Not Ready Article needs expansion. Take out the lists and you have a stub with ten sentences of prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Edits completed. please can you have a look at your convenience. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Infobox and intro say that the subject's DoB is "28 June 1928", the "Early life" section says "18 June 1928" and this ref says "June 29, 1928". Please confirm and make things consistent / explain the discrepancy in the wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch . I think in this case The Hindu has got it wrong. This article from the Sahitya Akademi has it as 28 June 1928. The Indian Express also has it as 28 June 1928. The Wire also has it as 28 June 1928. I have updated the early life section. Ktin (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting things out there, Ktin. Now Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Yahgan language becomes extinct/dead

 * Oppose on quality as the Yahgan language is orange-tagged with multiple issues, because it needs a lot more sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Yaghan language isn't an extinct language, but rather is a dead language (as defined in the article) as of Calderon's death. An extinct language is a language with no longer any speakers, and given that there are people who are speaking Yaghan thanks to Calderon's tireless work, including Calderon's daughters, however not as a their native language, thus making it a dead language instead. The article itself does not refer to the language, nor even the culture, as dead, due to Calderon's hard work in preserving the Yagan language and cultural traditions. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That also raises the issue of the France24 article listed does not say that the language is extinct following her death, so that raises an additional concern. The conclusion is garnered from something that is indirectly gleaned from reading between the lines rather than something explicitly stated by the news article being used as its source. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an alternative blurb to specify it's a language death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - It's a bit of a wobbly nomination given there are no previous examples to this. Personally I would like to support the nomination, but on the basis that there hasn't been any similar ITNs about language-extinctions, I'm abstaining the vote until a consensus has been generally reached. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The category Category:Languages extinct in the 21st century shows that more than 50 languages have gone extinct in just the last twenty years. It does not appear to be as unique of an event even when accounting for the isolate bit. Moreover the article has maintenance tags all over. Gotitbro (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Orange-tagged article, and I really don't see the lasting significance of this. Kafoxe (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unclear if it's accurate as written. One anthropologist said, The younger generation know the language but not to the same degree that Cristina does, Perhaps it's more nuanced, like she was the last full-blooded, fluent speaker—but that seems too narrow to blurb. RIP.
 * Preceding comment posted by Bagumba. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ornithoptera, Gotitbro, and Bagumba. Dead rather than extinct takes some of the air out of this, in my opinion, and personally this is kind of like posting a species extinction. They, sadly, happen to a frequent degree, and just the acknowledgement of this is what is news. And, like a species extinction, this is somewhat hypothetical, as in Calderón is the last known native speaker. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per not that rare and Calderón being posted to RD. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – According to our article, 20 years ago there were 1,685 Yaghan in Chile, a total that by 2017 had declined a bit. Apparently all, or nearly all, have gone to Spanish as their mother tongue. Since that process has been under way for many years, this announcement does not seem to have notable significance or impact, though it may be of interest to ethnologists. Also, not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RD This is mostly a recent death. It's weak as a blurb because, currently, there's not much news coverage out there.  There has been quite a bit of coverage of the language's fading status in recent years – see Atlas Obscura, for example.  Of course, just listing the woman's name in RD doesn't provide any context or clue but that's a general failing of the current RD format. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A language going extinct sounds like a pretty big deal. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think, to respond to this, the species extinction comparison is a good one. When white rhinos go extinct, there will be lots of media and lots of people caring because white rhinos are big and beautiful, were pretty common, and humans are a cause of extinction. The language comparison would be French going extinct and a massacre being partially responsible. That would get posted. But lots of species go extinct quite regularly, actually, and when it is microbial life that few humans have ever witnessed, very isolated, and there were only about 1000 examples that just died by natural causes, nobody really cares. That is this. Kingsif (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- is a language with no native speakers actually "extinct"? I don't think it is. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Referencing is dreadful and will require a great deal of work before this could be seriously considered for posting on the main page. Suggest closing for now as there is no point in even discussing the merits with the article in its current shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Cristina Calderon

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Relevant enough for RD. I did update it when she died but there were no news reports at the time and later I could not continue modifying the article. Bedivere (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Her death marks the extinction of a language. This is perhaps a story for a blurb. As an alternative centred on the language extinction, see the nomination above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Unclear if it's accurate as written. One anthropologist said, The younger generation know the language but not to the same degree that Cristina does, Perhaps it's more nuanced, like she was the last full-blooded, fluent speaker—but that seems too narrow to blurb. RIP.—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb While her passing is sad it is not on a level justifying a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

 * Oppose Stop it. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close Stop it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article is not regularly updated (has almost no content from this month, ongoing demands it would need to be updated daily), one section is orange-tagged, and article lacks sources in places. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of international daily coverage. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article not regularly updated.  Spencer T• C 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Regular but stupid thing that happens a lot, but with only major effects right now in Canada CR-1-AB (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SNOW OPPOSE This has become vexatious. Stop it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if someone was going to try and renominate this today. ITN/C never disappoints me.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luigi De Magistris

 * Support Solid article. Referencing is good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, meets RD standards. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a request for citations for an unreferenced paragraph in the Biography section. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * taken care of now Josey Wales Parley 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new footnotes there, . This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Dorce Gamalama

 * Support Decent article. Referencing is good. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced. Seems notable enough. (PenangLion (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC))
 * Support Well referenced, article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Career section is mostly WP:PROSELINE, and could use some organization and cleanup (e.g. is it important to have "In December 2019, Gamalama had a reunion with Sinta Nuriyah, the widow of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid" in that section, and how does that relate to her career?) Filmography is unreferenced. Occupation in infobox says that she was a "singer-songwriter" but career section has no information about her musical career. Rm "ready".  Spencer T• C 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Filmography has remained unreferenced. The Career section still lacks info on her career in the music industry. Please expand the article and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sandy Nelson

 * Comment The Discography section has been tagged for clean-up since 2013 (and has no sources).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per Pawnkingthree. Large chunks of the article are unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Discography section has remained unreferenced and in need of clean-up. There are also a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bappi Lahiri

 * Support Looks good enough for RD. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Death section is added. But the article still has many unreferenced items. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. Also lots of links to DAB pages that it'd be good to fix (I fixed a few links, but the rest weren't obvious to me, as I have no subject knowledge and there were many films of the same name). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Petrópolis floods

 * This is probably better as a blurb as it appears to be damage and loss of life from the amount if rain over a short 3 hrs, not a prolonged period. Article needs expansion. --M asem (t) 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Change made. Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs work, currently stub Flameperson (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Needs a lot of work... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Death toll is huge for any standard, but oppose on quality, the article is a stub and needs a lot of work to be ready for MP.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality In my eyes, the event is clearly notable enough for a blurb. Article is poor right now, in need of significant expansion; but a simple google search turns up a ton of quality English-language sources, so expanding the article should not be difficult.  I'm busy at the moment, but I'll do it myself in a few days if someone else doesn't do it first. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Event is supposedly huge enough, but the article says otherwise. More expansions needed. Once it's done, I'll support. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fairly widely covered, significant mortality. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, this article has not improved since I checked it yesterday, aside from the infobox. I don't want no stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll is high and increasing. ArionEstar (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tried to expand, it should be over 5k of readable prose now, but there's surprisingly little about this event in the news that gets into depth. It's covered (eg ticks that box for ITN) but just not the level you'd see if this had happened in the US or UK. --M asem (t) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose too short. expand then maybe. Redoct87 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is expanded. 12.246.51.130 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikiarticle now contains 450+ words of readable prose and is not longer a stub. Time for a re-review, please. --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is the current death toll? The footnotes where the figures are found on the wikipage lead to online news articles reporting a different figure. Please update the refs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would likely be the 136 number from G1 (a Brazilian news outlet). The English sources are a day or so behind --M asem (t) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's 146 now. I've updated the proposed blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to have been expanded sufficiently to meet minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 02:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this happens with US or UK outlets, but Brazilian news sites often update the same post/link with a different title. I had that problem while updating Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe too. Tet (talk to me) 14:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tet, I have encountered cases where a news agency would update the contents of its online reports without changing the URL. However, when the death toll is part of the title and/or part of the URL, they will need new ones when there is an updated death toll. And then, sometimes, we have bad edits (example) where contents in our wikipages got changed without new source materials added as references to support the new info, producing citation errors that need to be fixed on sight. --PFHLai (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Merseburger

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Juravinski

 * Long enough (600+ words), with enough footnotes and properly formatted, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Lou-Poy

 * Long enough (almost 500 words), with enough footnotes across the article, and properly formatting, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández arrested

 * Support A former head of state being arrested, especially on serious charges, seems important enough. Article seems well-referenced. The Kip (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We usually wait for the final verdict and post if the person is convicted. At this point, we don't know how this is going to end, and it won't be significant if he's acquitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until more worthwhile developments occur. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose we don't post arrests, if in the future there is a conviction, then we could post that. But posting now violates WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Simeonovski, Alsoriano, Joseph. Longstanding and well-founded policy for an online encyclopedia. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: PJ O'Rourke

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support That's sad news. I shall get one of his books down to reread now. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good. I didn't like the bastard but he made me laugh.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support One of the few Americans to appeal to the cutting British sense of humour and win. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deep Sidhu

 * Support - Looks good and well sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is ready, what is the hold up? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've marked it as ready (as I agree it's ready)- hopefully marking it as ready will mean an admin sees it. It needs an admin to promote to front page, and I guess no admin is around at the moment. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph2302 I see. Thank you for your action. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada convoy protest

 * Oppose yet again as covered by the Covid ongoing. Yes, evoking the Emergencies Act is unusual but this is to allow enforcement agencies to put an end to these without violent methods. --M asem (t) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close this is the third time this has been nominated, and it's been rejected both other times (for a blurb and ongoing). Right now it's getting repetitive and disruptive to have it nominated again and again. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close x2 is not difficult to understand: days ago it was clear that it's a no, and today it's again clear that it is another no. Stop. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the addition of the emergencies act makes it a quicker yes now. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provincial, not to mention we've been over this. Might be a fitting Ongoing nom though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was also previously opposed as an ongoing, since many countries are having COVID protests, so why should we focus on just one country's protests? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not provincial anymore. The Federal government has enacted a state of emergency, and there are protests outside of Ontario. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , even if it was "provincial", oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a strictly provincial article anymore, doesn't take much reading to see that. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already closed this debate twice already... DarkSide830 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If this wasn't about North America, it would have been closed as duplicate by now. But because Canada is next to the US, it's getting special privilege as the only thing allowed to be doscussed for a third time at ITN....... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And the article hasn't been updated properly about this, so also fails article quality. Though as this is a North American nom, I imagine that can be bypassed too.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is different from the other times, the federal Emergencies Act has been invoked. We gave the Capitol Riots a blurb, why not this? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which should be the target article. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the invocation of the federal emergencies act, for the first time in Canadian history, changes my vote to a support.  I had previously opposed because it was a "local" issue, but the federal government has now seized control of the response.  The blockade of the border crossings and the discovery of the American funding of the protests also increases this from being a local issue to an international issue. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Joseph2302, support is "pending update". NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support at last Justin Trudeau continues the family tradition of overracting to minor domestic issues. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a big deal and opposes which ignore this development and simply state "I opposed this last time" should be ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you can respect the arguments of others. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS isn't a vote count people who just read the headline and reacted with "oppose" without considering the new information are making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote and should absolutely be ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent, at no time neither I nor the rest of us who have opposed the repeated nominations in these protests (far from a "civil unrest", by the way) have done so using IDONTLIKEIT, but very clearly you do consider that our oppositions are not valid because "you do not like them". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When the municipal emergency was nommed, you said, "We will talk about it if it happens at the national level, but I don't think it will come to this end." As a provincial emergency, "Stop wasting our time." National level now, just "another no." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The emergency is still reduced to a very specific provincial and local level, even though we are already at a national reaction level. We are not facing a "the whole country is besieged by truckers". In fact, let us not forget that it still has to be authorized by the Parliament. We are dealing with an "invocation", not "approval"/"application". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're being oblivious. This invocation of unprecedented power is said to precisely disable targets along the world's largest land border, spanning any and all confederated provinces. The NDP has already signaled parliamentary approval, and willful ignorance of the law holds no weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that there are no more problems at the border, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter no longer supports my browser, but if that's only about the Ambassador Bridge, feast your eyes out west. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support — Declaring a state of emergency due to civil unrest (not due to a natural disaster) in a developed country is a significant and newsworthy event for ITN. STSC (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not worthy I think. Are we playing whack a mole? Why does this keep coming back. Venkat TL (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on this entry and personally don't think that Wikipedia should be pretending to report the news at all, but responding to some of the points: this keeps coming back because it's the top news story basically everywhere across Canada and has been for several weeks. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is significant because the statute that it replaced was viewed retroactively by many scholars as a declaration of martial law, and the new statute is basically unchanged except for compelling an after-the-fact review of the government's actions. As others have said, it is only the second time in Canadian history that such a nationwide suspension of civil liberties has been activated, other than during both world wars. It's difficult and dangerous to draw parallels, but this action is somewhat equivalent to the US President unilaterally suspending the 2nd through 10th amendments to the Constitution. It doesn't mean that Trudeau Jr. is about to send in the tanks like his father did against the FLQ, but he now has the power to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He can now quarter troops in your house? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in constitutional law, but basically yes. The police are basically only bound now by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not specifically prohibit quartering troops in citizens' houses. That prohibition comes from a British law that predates Canada by almost 200 years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support When this was first nominated I certainly believed the article was not ready. Now that the emergencies act has been declared, the highest power the Canadian government can invoke, as well as the fact that the protests are no longer Provincial, and that weapons were seized at the blockade in Alberta and the considerable economic loss (almost $1B CAD), I believe the article is extremely notable. It might be difficult for US-centric editors here to fathom but this is officially a really really big deal and is definitely the Country’s January 6th moment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. January 6th was considered by a large portion of the population (both at the time and still) as an attempted subversion or perhaps complete overthrow of a democracy. This hardly rises to that level. If it is "Canada's January 6th" than Canada's January 6th shouldn't be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any argument here from you other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see an argument that DarkSide830 is making; you do not. He is saying that your comparison to January 6 is a false equivalency. January 6 was a movement by supporters of Donald Trump attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, and overturn an election. Freedom Convoy is a bunch of dudes in their trucks blocking a couple bridges. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Opposing this on the grounds that it's covered by COVID-19 Ongoing at this point is silly. It's become a singularly significant event in Canada that happens to have been inspired by COVID-19.  We posted the UK "Marbury v Madison"  despite objections that it was covered by Brexit Ongoing. 2607:F470:E:22:2C01:FB8D:E209:78A9 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Even the pandemic is only a provincial and territorial emergency, this stands out (iffy article quality, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would it be possible to get the body of the article to properly contextualize the importance of invoking the Emergencies Act? The body of the target article doesn't mention or elaborate on the historical weight (i.e., that this is the first time it's been invoked since its passing in 1988), even though it states that in the lead without an inline source (there are sources in the article to support it, they're just not attached to the statement in the lead or any such statement in the body). I'm leaning support this time, but I feel like the article should first contextualize why invoking this is historically of weight, which I feel like should also be mentioned in the blurb if possible? This is generally a "pending some better updates". ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on this. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose with prejudice Four nominations of this article within the last few weeks is bordering on vexatious. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They're four separate events, from four nominators, related to an ongoing movement. Some older votes were just waiting for something federal, unusual or "really dramatic" like this one. Acceptance trumps prejudice? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As Trudeau stated this was to be a very narrow and tailored application of the E Act as to remove to blockage of roads, this isn't the big bombshell of martial law that some were expecting (or as some conservative news commentators are claiming). It could still go that way, but as noted above trying to compare this to Jan 6 is a huge misstep. --M asem (t) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I compared it to the pandemic in the relevant country, brother. There are levels to emergency here, and this one "goes to eleven", one more. Those few hours in Washington do pale in comparison, even as an alleged insurrection, everything just seems brighter and bigger on American screens. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose with prejudice. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to (but would not necessarily support) an ongoing nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, I agree with Ad Orientem, with four nominations in the past couple of weeks, this is now beyond ridiculous.  Chrisclear (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps you'll be able to identify in advance the fifth unique person who finds these unprecedented events in Canada newsworthy and warn them ahead of time to not upset your sensibilities. Furthermore, objecting without considering the new information and instead simply stating "I opposed this already" is basically worthless. if you think the first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, a NATO member G7 country, is not significant, then please explain otherwise your oppose would be rightly ignored as WP:IDONTLIKEIT by any admin evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada" is notable in Canada and is notable as a factoid. However, just because Canada did something for the first time doesn't mean it's ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We posted Justin Trudeau's election and reelection. That's a fun bit of man-on-the-street gotcha trivia: "Name the current Canadian Prime Minister." If this once-in-a-lifetime historic event doesn't make it, I better not see another typical quiet election night result overblown on the main page again! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was just because something was done for the first time doesn't make it ITN level. How does countering with a routine event disprove my point? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying brand new, manner of government changes in the English world are more newsworthy than routine changes in House seating arrangements. We post the latter, so should definitely post the former. And I forgot to include his 2019 reelection. Remember how it gripped the world? I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaning Oppose. WP:VNT has tainted this event and it's corresponding article, and highlighting it in my mind goes against the premise of In the News to highlight the best of the encyclopedia, with absolutely no offense intended towards the editors who have kept this article in great shape. -  Floydian  τ ¢
 * Strong oppose - 4th time here. I don't really need to say much when I've already loaded my reasons for the previous 3 nominations. Unless something dramatic occurs, I don't think it needs an ITN. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly does something dramatic look like to you? Fire? Upturned cruisers? Blood and gore? Tanks? Tearful resignation speech? Broken storefronts? British children's choir? Black helicopters? Suicide bombing? Monsters? Your last three votes have been nothing but acknowledgment of opposition to mentioning the convoy's small beginning (by four people, not including you). That's not heavy/strong/loaded, say more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the protest really differ from any other typical COVID-19 related protests? People are arrested, they're retreating, I repeat the word, retreating. When Trudeau evacuated for safety reasons, people were hyping up like Canada is collapsing. When Trudeau declared "some emergency-powers" people here are panicking like Trudeau is going to start another Tiananmen at Canada.
 * Let alone there are similar protests in New Zealand. My previous three votes are done without clear elaboration (I sincerely apologize if I did not post a 5 million-word article for my reason) because I don't think I need to elaborate further that my opinions shared the same points made by the people who opposed it. Even if it's important enough, the most critical part of this event is over.
 * - The comparison regarding January 6 and this event being similar doesn't make sense when one, this protest was made by only a small proportion of people that most Canadians don't even agree with, two, January 6 was the first time in history that people had breached the grounds close to the Capitol. It is considered a coup d'etat, something that hasn't been seen seriously since 1797. Is this a coup? No. Is this going to threaten democracy in Canada? No. It is about some angry people refusing to take vaccines. Using the American bias doesn't make any sense when there are comparable incidents from the States related to this event yet they're not in ITN.
 * I sincerely hope nobody nominates this again for the 5th time. It's becoming a recurring joke for desperate nominations. Per Ad Orientem. PenangLion (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The protests are perhaps not that different from other COVID-19 ones but further developments and the enactment of a wartime act do indicate notability beyond COVID. The already present link in Ongoing to the pandemic might have sufficed but it doesn't even mention this protest (or others) in the linked [main] article. This seems akin to the Kazakhstan protests to me and a blurb or ongoing would seem apt. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Alsoriano97 and Joseph2302. Enough is enough. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close. Already rejected, and nothing fundamental has changed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raees Mohammad

 * Support looks about long enough, well sourced (checked CricketArchive sources and they verify the content) and covers most of the known information about him. Maybe there's more content in offline/pre-Internet/non-English sources, but article looks good enough for RD in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial Support Well sourced however dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's one dead link, which should be fixed, not removed (see WP:DEADLINK). Things behind paywalls are not dead links, I've confirmed they all work. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dead page links, not ref links. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs to be tagged with deadlink? --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The one dead reference has been tagged as such. No idea was a "dead page link" is, as that seems like made up terminology. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they mean "redlinks", which don't need to be removed. User should stop making rules that aren't valid for RD criteria. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * A little short at 2112 characters (356 words of readable prose), but long enough to qualify. No concerns with footnoting (except for the paywall) and formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Khayal Zaman Orakzai

 * Support Bit of a stub but otherwise looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending expansion. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a stub, which doesn't meet article quality guidelines (contrary to the first voter's support). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a 211-word stub, not long enough to qualify. What did he do in each of the elected offices? Please expand. --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Halyna Sevruk

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial Support Article looks good, dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see any dead links in the article? --GGT (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support more than good enough for RD, red links aren't a valid reason for stopping this running (contrary to the user that clearly doesn't know the ITNC rules). Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aled Roberts

 * Partial Support Article is well sourced, however the dead links need to be removed and the "Personal Life and Death" section should be expanded. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support The subject's death should be reported in the mainstream press/media. One or more better sources would be helpful. And I concur with Hcoder3104 that his personal life section could be expanded. Otherwise, the article appears to be short but adequate and acceptably referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added a BBC and Wales Online source for the death.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Question: The intro states that in 2019, he was appointed Welsh Language Commissioner. However, the rest of the wikibio does not mention anything he did after the 2016 election -- the following sentence was about his death in 2022. So what happened after 2016? What did he do as Language Commissioner? Did he die in office as Language Commissioner? Coverage of the subject's life appears to be truncated and incomplete. Perhaps that final sentence of the intro should be moved down to become the final sentence of a Career section, unless more about his time working as Language Commissioner can be elaborated. --PFHLai (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some more about his Commissioner career and merged the personal life section too.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . That works. This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ivan Reitman

 * Support: Even if I wasn't a recent editor, this feels like a slam dunk.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No Blurb for usual reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a blurb has been proposed. As of right now this is just an RD nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the type of RD that would draw a blurb by popularity but I fully agree that Reitman is not the type of transformative figure in Hollywood to merit a blurb. He was beloved and a name behind several recognizable names but that's mostly it. --M asem (t) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing or has even mentioned a blurb, stop that nonsense. Spman (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If Masem and I hadn't stopped that nonsense, someone would have proposed it, trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No they would not have, stop. Spman (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is way undersourced- article quality is the only criteria for RD. Also, what's the relevance of the table in "Recurring cast members" section? It lists roles played by many people, not just him, which aren't relevant to a biographical article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LVI

 * Noting that we usually include the player of the game as the image once that is determined. --M asem (t) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not announced yet... waiting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's Kupp. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- Hydrology (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- one of the largest sporting events in the world. Definitely noteworthy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This proposal would be better without that comment. It's an ITNR event, so will be posted without people having to hype it up, as soon as article quality is up to scratch. Claiming it to be "one of the largest sporting events in the world" is highly debatable, and one of the reasons we have ITNR. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems like we're inconsistent through the years on whether the blurb provides a Roman numeral lesson or not. For annual events, we typically don't repeat the year of the event.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've forgotten what's been done in past years and did not check the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Last year we added the roman numeral and the score of the game. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind - score was quickly removed and roman numerals were removed the following morning. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck the original. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, annual ITN inclusion. The Kip (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality The game summary section seems long, and it turns out to be source solely to a WP:PRIMARY source play-by-play transcript. Secondary sources should be used to pare this down to significant events (and not WP:OR).—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Let’s not delay this ITNR item over minor quibbles. I am not concerned about the claim of WP:OR. The article does not contain any erroneous content. Jehochman Talk 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY policy is not a "minor quibble" (emphasis added): Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them It's a monotonous wall of play-by-play, which a secondary source is more reliable to use to determine the WP:DUE highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A secondary source covering the game is not going to be at the level of detail that a quarter-by-quarter recap of the game would seem to require - that would likely focus on 3-4 major plays throughout the game and the overall end stats, but not individual drives or the like. Comparing the prose length to past Super Bowls as well as to FIFA World Cup final games, it is perhaps about 25% a bit too long, but no different from how those games are presented or how sources are used in terms of primary recaps being used as the main sourcing. And at least my read of the ESPN recap is that they are adding some analysis indicating which drives were important, so this pulls it to a secondary source in that regards. --M asem (t) 13:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I am going to review that section again carefully and I also see at least one naked URL references that need to be fixed.  When I'm done I might remove the maintenance tag. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Besides the poor referencing of the game summary, there's nothing about the post-game reactions and ceremonies. The article has some way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba Hcoder3104☭ (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sports Event of only local significance. Not enough global interest. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:10FD:A40C:A28B:8C40 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true, and also it's WP:ITNR, so your perceived importance is irrelevant, as it is pre-approved as important enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bagumba BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is expanded with more information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's an important event, like other sports championships that are featured in the news on the home page. However, let's wait a while to, per Kiril Simeonovski, expand the page with other things like reactions and all that stuff. For now, we should not feature it yet. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I had nothing to do with writing up the game summary, but I can replace those refs with better ones this afternoon. "Post-game reactions and ceremonies"? There's a parade today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the article is fine. Post-game reacons? Single source match summary? Neither of those made up criteria kept the 2021_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_Final nom off the main page. I've never heard of anyone complain about "too much prose" before. We get it, everyone else in the world hates America and hates what America calls "football". Too god damned bad. The item is ITN/R and the article is in fine shape for posting. Get it up there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I did think about that after posting my above comment. Seems like the goal posts (pun intended) are always moving on these. It used to be a game summary is all that's needed, but now it's "post-game reactions and ceremonies"? Why exactly is the ESPN.com play-by-play not a valid source for the game's play-by-play? This article has 29kb prose. It should be enough to post for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have animosity towards US or the sport which is called “football” there. The reason for suggesting that information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies should be added is the heed that US media pay to it. If something is really in the news, it should be mentioned in the article at the very least. And comparing this to the recently concluded Africa Cup of Nations isn’t spot on because media weren’t that much interested about post-game reactions. Since you referred to the sport we call “football”, please check 2018 FIFA World Cup Final for how a post-game section can fit well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be a consensus to post yet, due to quality concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The event is on WP:ITN/R and there are no orange warnings. Policy-wise, there is no requirement for "post game reactions and ceremonies" as has pointed out. And a game summary that is "too long" is not a justification to delay posting. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But a WP:PRIMARY violation is. The lack of a tag noting this shouldn't be relevant per WP:NOTBURO, but I've added one now to address that concern. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:PRIMARY, in part, says primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, so where's the violation? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They can, but only in a limited manner; the section is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There are also several citation needed tags that need to be resolved before this can be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The section with primary sourcing is the game summary. It covers what happened on the field, which millions of people were watching, without any scholarly or professional-level analysis of what happened. And yes, there are four (4) citation needed tags, for minor points, and on an article with 151 unique inline citations. Perfection should never be the enemy of the good. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am not suggesting we delete it. However, there is a standard of quality required for ITN, and this article currently fails that, and will continue to fail that until the text is rewritten to incorporate analysis. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a primary source to me. It's published by ESPN, which is independent of the Super Bowl organizers. Just because it's a play-by-play guide doesn't mean it lacks the hallmarks of an independent source, and it is commonplace to include such things for the detail of what happened, for example as at 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final. This is especially true when it's fairly bald statements of fact about what happened. Obviously it would be better to draw the summary from more than one source, and I might insist on that for GA or FA, but I don't see it as necessary for the ITN standard. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not suggesting pulling this, I just am surprised at how quickly it was posted, especially when there was apparent legitimate quality questions - and compared to how quickly the Club World Cup nom was closed to discussion, even though some opposes there amount to nothing more than the fallacious "it isn't ITN/R so we can't post". Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fifteen hours after the event is about what we should be shooting for as far as posting time. WaltCip- (talk)  18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Half the time, items don't even get nominated in that timeframe, but besides that, I very much recall many objections to posting less than ~30 hours after nom (let alone event), especially the "it was posted while America was asleep because the admin knew Americans would oppose" accusations. As said below, a TROUT offence, since we all know it would have eventually (and probably very quickly compared to other items anyway) been posted. Kingsif (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - I've always felt that had an itchy trigger finger when it came to ITN posting, but in this case, the article is good enough for volunteer work.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment these ITN articles should be timely.  It would be actively harmful to our readers to tie this article up in bureaucratic objections for days and days until it's no longer of interest to the reader.  As said above, "Good enough."  There is nothing even slightly inaccurate in the article as far as I see, but if you see something inaccurate, please point it out specifically and somebody will fix it right away. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't the criteria for posting on ITN; articles don't get a pass on quality just because some people believe they must be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh, not again User:Fuzheado has a history of making bad calls at ITN and they really need to stop doing this before they get a topic ban from doing so, which frankly I would impose right now. There was no consensus to post this and there is no rush to do so - why not wait until it's fixed? Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it's up now, and moreover, the ITN picture is of the game's MVP. It would look a bit silly of us to pull it. WaltCip- (talk)  18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why I haven't suggested pulling it. We really need Fuzheado to stop fucking about with ITN, though.  They posted SuperBowl 54 without any consensus either  as well as the significant number of other issues.    etc. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your recollection appears to be off. For SuperBowl 54, it was marked as ready by after noting all CN tags were addressed, with pings to the opposers.   added an additional support.  I posted it, and it was immediately post-posting supported by TRM . This is not "without any consensus." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the posting was somewhat premature, in that there were clear outstanding opposes and orange tags for missing citations, it was almost there at the time because the article is became "ready" about half an hour after it was posted. As such, I would award a mild WP:TROUT to Fuzheado but nothing more than that in this instance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The missing citations have been added, but the WP:PRIMARY issue has not been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not a serious enough issue to hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been told repeatedly by numerous editors that WP:PRIMARY has not been violated, both here and at the article talk page. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And numerous editors have disagreed. 1300 words sourced to a single primary source is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY, particularly since there are secondary sources that we can integrate into the article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that we allow up to 700 words to be used in summarizing plots of films using the film itself as a source without any problem, using this many words from a third party source is absolutely no way a PROMARY violation as long as no interpretation is done (eg such as suggesting one team dominated the whole game and the other team only scored on a few lucky drives). --M asem (t) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The exception at MOS:PLOT only applies to fictional works. BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, when it comes to ITN, there kind of is a rush. How stupid would it look if we posted the results of a major sporting event two or three days later? It's not even actually "in the news" anymore at that point. Mlb96 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting the reinstatement of unsourced paragraph, meaning that we another citation needed issue, in addition to the ones in the international media coverage section, as well as primary sourcing issues. BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already been fixed. Several of us agree with you on this specific issue. If that text is restored again, please report it as edit warring or tendentious editing. Jehochman Talk 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Event meets ITNR and is the biggest event of this sport in the world, just wanted to make sure this is consensous. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. I think this is alright. Agree with in that a WP:TROUT might be in order. That said, I am not really following this WP:PRIMARY argument. In my mind match summaries are like book summaries, right? i.e. MOS:PLOT. Though I can see the Fiction vs Non-fiction argument, the game itself is the source for the summary. I see that that is the same thing that has been done in Super Bowl LV. Where there are additional facts being introduced outside of the match summary e.g. Out of 110 Super Bowl teams, Kansas City became just the third to finish the game without scoring a touchdown, joining the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl VI and the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl LIII. This statement is sourced to a separate source, like it should. I think overall, we are a-ok here. Ktin (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My main objection per WP:PRIMARY was be cautious about basing large passages on them. The earlier SB page that you mentioned had more than play-by-play refs. At some point, maybe I'll add some secondary sources and use their analysis to trim some minutiae.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 German presidential election

 * Chancellor's ITNR, not the President. —Cryptic 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose since not head of government. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support national-level election in a G7 state, even if not election directly made by voters. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Referencing is quite poor and will require considerable work before this could be posted. Weak Support if the bolded article can be brought up to scratch. The presidency in Germany is not a completely powerless and ceremonial office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Given that we posted the re-election of the president of Italy two weeks ago, which was done under similar circumstances in the parliament, this should be posted once the article is improved. I don't see any reason to set Germany apart from Italy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is way too short, needs e.g. some text on the candidates who were most likely to do well, and maybe something on their policies. Results is unsourced, and generally we have some coverage of what happens after the election. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – This seems a routine if humdrum (no pol. change) head-of-state post, but the text of the 2022 German presidential election article hasn't been updated yet. The fact that Steinmeier, 66, has secured a second five-year term is worth noting. (Mug should be cropped from bottom & sides.) – Sca (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That Italy thing was a mistake, and did not set a precedent. We don't post positions that aren't the head of government unless they have significant power in their own right. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that Steinmeier, 66, has secured a second five-year term as head of the most populous (83 milliion) state in Europe is worth noting.   – Sca (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't Russia the most populous country in Europe? The continent, spanning to the Urals, is not the EU, in which Germany certainly is the most populous. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think Sca was referring to the fact that Germany is the most populous country that is fully within Europe. Had he not, you would think he would know better than to categorize Germany as the most populous (Turkey and Russia are more populous despite the fact that they both have a minority of their land in Europe. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Seventy-seven percent of Russia's 6.6 million sq. mi.. of territory is in Asia, 23 percent in Europe. (Russia's population distribution is approximately the opposite.) The proportion of Turkey's territory in Europe is miniscule (or minuscule, if you prefer). – Sca (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's completely irrelevant how big is Germany. All sovereign countries should be treated equally.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose you would also oppose Prince Charles's accession to the powerless British throne.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But he would also become head of state of 15(?) other countries around the world. So there is a bit of a difference due to that, no? 91.96.25.198 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And also monarchies aren't really comparable to this because they have cultural and historical significance, and typically change hands far less frequently than heads-of-state in countries with a parliament style democracy. In either case they are not ITN/R, and are assessed on their own merits. IMHO the merits of this one are lacking, and the position has no real significance beyond some domestic ceremonial duties. Furthermore, the suggestion that we do it because it's Germany, while we wouldn't do the same thing for supposedly "less important" countries is systemic bias. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the election of a head of state of any country in the world. We recently posted the president of Italy, the president of Macedonia in April 2014, the previous president of Italy in January 2015, the president of Austria in May 2016 and so on. It seems like either too many mistakes were committed in the past or it's not true that we don't post the election of ceremonial heads of state. Anyway, there's no systemic bias at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Per Kiril Simeonovski, this may be done as was done for re-election of prsident of Italy. Alex-h (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In addition to its population, Germany's GDP ($4.6 trillion) ranks first in Europe and the EU, ahead of the UK ($3.4 trillion) and France ($3.1 trillion). – Sca (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To echo Kiril above, the GDP of Germany seems entirely irrelvant to this discussion. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only thing that makes it slightly more noteworthy to me is that this is 'only' the 4th time a President has been elected for a second term, first time for someone of the social democrats. If it were the first woman elected to the office, it probably would have swayed me though. But the position overall being entirely ceremonial, i don't see this as important enough to post. It will have no effect on anything, within Germany or internationally. The assembly could quite literally elect a sack of rice and it would have the same effect, not to disparage the highest office within one of my home countries. The sack of rice would only need some arms to pin medals and be the final signatory of laws they have no veto power over. Just to illustrate the point. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The anonymous IP user immediately above is listed as having contributed four posts, all here and all today. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The registered user above is assuming bad faith for no reason and has no understanding how variable IP adresses work. I have zero contributions every day because my IP changes. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interest of editorial transparency, I suggest you become a registered user, like most eds active here are. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be treated like a human being by the likes of you? No thank you. And just to make clear, the IP does not change by my choice, just how my ISP operates. I could also note how you have made 394 edits in 2022, only 10 of which to articles and only one to an article talk page. Or maybe we could both stop irrelevant mudslinging and assuming bad faith, get over our dislike and get back to the matter at hand? 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Such hostile comments are counter-productive. WP:NPA Please consider registering as a user. – Sca (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They have no obligation to create an account. And claiming NPA when you've called them useless/inexperienced for being an IP is somewhat hypocritical. Especially when all you seem to do is make sarcastic/pointless comments on here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA! – Sca (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack to say you're committing a personal attack for attacking the IP for being an IP! IP editors are human too! -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Casting unfounded aspersions is very much a personal attack as well. I am not sure if you are aware of the edit count tool, but for someone with that kind of a statiscitc, criticism of others seems a bit rich. And in regards to your posting at ITN, quantifiable evidence does suggest you are doing what Joseph suggests you are doing and i am not sure you want people to look through your contributions in more detail to actually show it in diffs. Folks like you are the exact reason why i do not want to make an account. But rest assured, you are far from the only one to conduct themselves in such a manner. (ec) 91.96.162.242 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never said any IP user had an "obligation to create an account." I only suggested that the person at issue "consider registering as a user." No aspersions intended; just a suggestion. Adieu. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, then let us put it off to a misunderstanding. And i personally took no offense at your suggestion to make an account. My issue was you insinuating i was an SPA and my entire purpose of being here was somehow nefarious(i actually voted for Steinmeiers party with my 2nd vote in the last general election, not that it matters), which is usually the implication of being an SPA, no? But if you did not mean to say that, i will take your word for it. If you would allow a suggestion, please be more 'diplomatic' about how you phrase things in future to minimise the chance for misunderstandings. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.162.242 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. And Schönen Tag noch to you as well. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose ceremonial position elected by a legislative body. Minimal impact to german society. No reason to repeat the mistake of the Italian president. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality - Once the results are sourced, I will support. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Upon reflection, I concede it's time to lay this one to rest, since this event doesn't pose changes for the German political landscape. And it's starting to get stale. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valerie Boyd

 * Support Referenced, good depth of coverage for what the subject was notable for.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article decently referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a request for citation regarding the subject's involvement in the Alice Walker Literary Society. And three refs are marked as deadlinks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new ref, Bloom6132. This wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beryl Vertue

 * Support Solid article. Well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Beckmann

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 FIFA Club World Cup Final

 * Comment not ITNR In_the_news/Recurring_items --LaserLegs (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The match summary is not there yet. --PFHLai (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per In the news/Recurring items, seems like we already have enough footy in a year. The last FIFA Club WC nom, also with an English club, was not posted.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This may sound like a big deal, but the reality is that the world pays little attention to this, and it has none of the prestige of its feeder competitions such as the Champions League or the Copa Libertadores. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding oppose. There are already many football ITN items and this one is not receiving as much attention as the others. --Tone 10:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this tournament wouldn’t hold the significance that tournaments like the Champions League and the Copa Libertadores would hold so it’s better not to post. <font color="White"> Hamza Ali Shah    Talk 11:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The two finalists are from UEFA Champions League and Copa Libertadores which are listed in the ITNR. That makes this year Club World Cup Final a particularly significant event. STSC (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Glorified friendly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that the UK sports press were giving more attention to the week's regular season games than this, should suggest it isn't much more than a friendly with a FIFA bauble for the winners. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugo Torres Jiménez

 * More than long enough (900+ words), with enough footnotes (AGF'd non-English sources), and with no formatting issues, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rahul Bajaj

 * Weak Support Good citations, but as you said, the article is too short. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Fakescientist8000. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is now 437 words long thanks to the above mentioned updaters. Tube·of·Light 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Freedom Convoy 2022

 * Oppose It is covered at least presently by the COVID ongoing. --M asem (t) 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am open to an alternate proposal of replacing the COVID ongoing with this one. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * COVID remains a danger around the world affecting everyone. Replacing it makes no sense. --M asem (t) 01:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm already at two reverts on this page to try to maintain decor, and can't manage the circus a straight removal proposal would be. I do note that Fire, the heat death of the universe, and falling turtles are dangers worldwide, but are not on the main page. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think enough has changed for us to be able to find a consensus here, and, per Masem, this is basically covered in ongoing already. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose despite the news coverage, provincial at best. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are several other such convoys across the globe, but while there are others, they are all relatively small scale events of people with fringe views. --M asem (t) 01:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the so-called Lunatic Fringe, though, most everyone in Canada would have agreed (and still agree we would have once) that the government shouldn't do anything the protestors still agree it shouldn't do to us, up past SARS and only until not even two years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Will you please understand that this is neither ITN-worthy nor Ongoing-worthy? It was very clear. Don't waste our time. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Heavy oppose - Third time, again? Consensus leans to a no-support, just give up. It's not impactful enough to be ITN-worthy. PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Conceding that consensus can change, I am not a big fan of "the voting shall continue until the correct result is obtained." Very little has changed of a really material nature in this story. I supported the earlier nomination, but I think it's time to accept that absent some really dramatic development, consensus to post is unlikely to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It continues to amaze me that ITN/C lives in some kind of an alternate relation from the rest of the world. The story has already had a major international impact, including on the auto production in the U.S., and spurring similar trucking protests in other countries, including in Europe. Nsk92 (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to (but would not necessarily support) an ongoing nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chrisclear (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we shouldn't be giving special treatment to this just because it's in North America. Many countries are having COVID vaccine related protests, so either post the general article about COVID protests, or nothing at all. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

 * Support; has been extremely prominent in the news for an extended period of time, and even if there is no invasion will impact relations between Russia and the rest of the world for decades. However, the previous discussion should be closed before we open a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that discussion need not be closed. An ITNC discussion from 3 weeks ago that has been archived for two weeks is implicitly closed as "no consensus". User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that; I also note that it has been listed at WP:RFCL for over two weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed your pointless close request. ITNC items that are more than a week old are archived. Archives are not edited further. Stephen 05:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is relatively common to close archived discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Neutral Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Some say war is imminent. Some think not. Audituri autem estis proelia et opiniones proeliorum videte ne turbemini oportet enim haec fieri sed nondum est finis. . -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing seismic has changed since the previous discussion was closed. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The former discussion was not closed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed is the wrong way of putting it, I guess, but no one has commented on it for ~2 weeks and there didn't seem to be any consensus. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong support - Most likely will turn into a world war CR-1-AB (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong oppose - Most likely will just fade away over time as the international dick rattlers find another game to play. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Extremely strong oppose' = oppose. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise, 'Extremely strong support' = support. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Despite my involvement in the editing of this article, despite the fact that war is "imminent", I'm not going to support this issue as the critical crises of the incident has generally been over by now. Leaked documents from late January indicated that both sides (Russia and NATO) has not been serious in a military conflict. Given with the circumstances, unless a massive escalation occurs, I'm opposing this nomination. PenangLion (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This clearly could be big, but right now its a lot of preparations for combat and political saber rattling without any actual open hostilities. But should something happen, I fully expect this to either have a story to blurb or drop into ongoing (pending article quality), this is clearly the type of story that would have the type of enduring world effects. --M asem (t) 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does an international crisis require actual military hostilities to be ITN worthy? Plenty of things have happened already, including UN Security Council meetings, major troop deployments by Russia around Ukraine, U.S. moving some extra troops to Europe, U.S. ordering all its citizens out of Ukraine, and so on. It's simply insane, I repeat, completely insane, that while all major news sources in all counties around the world are covering this crisis as a major story, ITN still pretends that nothing is happening. Nsk92 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN doesn't pretend things aren't happening by omitting them from Ongoing. Everything except the pandemic is excluded. What sets this real situation apart from every other widely-covered arc? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support. It's not that it "could be big", it is already is a huge story and has been so for several months. That's exactly what ITN Ongoing is for. Nsk92 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Morgan695 (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's an ongoing event that has been in the news almost continuously for weeks, and has had troop deployments and UN discussions. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — Meets the criteria for ongoing events: newsworthy and updated. No need to wait; later "World War III" may become an ongoing event. STSC (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per Nsk Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per Joseph2302 -- HurricaneEdgar    12:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This turned into a very bizarre game of successive allegations and denials about imminent invasion while nothing has really happened for four months. If we're really nearing an invasion as reported in the media, then let's wait for it to happen and post it then. I don't think we should add a warning about something which may never happen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, it meets the criteria for ongoing events: the article is newsworthy and updated. Concerning development. BastianMAT (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's been subject to ongoing discussion and constant media attention for weeks; its certainly a lot more widely commented on than many of the natural disasters and sporting events that get covered on ITN.--Llewee (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I highly doubt there'll be an invasion, but it's been in the news for a long time. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nothing has changed since the last nom, and if the community did not see fit to post it at that time, there is no indication that consensus will have changed here.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Have we ever posted a similar political/diplomatic crisis before? Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - not our place to interpret whether this is legitimate potential invasion or a political pissing match, nor to peer into our crystal ball to determine whether or not this will turn to war or have long-lasting geopolitical consequences. This is a global news story and has been for over a month. By simply placing this into ongoing, we can also avoid the need to state the highly fluid current situation on the ticker. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No matter what the result is, this is most certainly a major story in the news, and will continue to be. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because the crisis in itself has had far-reaching implications for the security architecture of the world, already. That makes it a highly significant ongoing crisis regardless of whether the final outcome is an outright war or not. Yakikaki (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It meets the criteria, and is certainly still reported by the news. The article itself actually looks good for an ongoing event. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A prolonged crisis that has received plenty of attention from RS and world leaders, and is already notable regardless of whether an invasion is pending. Definitely among the most important stories of the year. Davey2116 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like last time, more anti-Russia hype anticipating future world war. We're not an allied outlet in this campaign. As of now, just another tense border situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it anti-Russia or pro-NATO/Ukraine? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead says it "generated concerns over a potential invasion". Would you like to be cast as a potential invader? By media friendly to the coalition heavily arming and militarily reinforcing your unfriendly neighbour, under the auspices of "defense"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there sources arguing that Ukraine is arming itself to launch an invasion of Russia? 93 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but there are plenty of sources saying Russia "could be" preparing to invade Ukraine in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, etc, and they never did. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also sources from those years saying Russia "could be" to blame for American democracy, "could be" behind Eurozone cyberattacks, "could be" punished for punitive polonium poisonings. Others, more sympathetic, see how Russia "could be" seeing the troop and missile battery buildup just outside its backyard as something it might want to think about claiming self-defence over. And the article is clear that it has. Ukraine isn't worth amassing about. But NATO is quite intimidating, even to cold hard Russians, deep down. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Constant, escalating, and prolonged developments about the impending possibility of war between two European countries 93 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, has been the top international story for a few days. It also doesn't matter if this amounts to nothing, it's in the news now, and can just be removed later if that's the case. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three {Failed verification} tags in this wikiarticle. Can these problem tags be resolved, please? --PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once tags sorted. 82.32.8.87 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Surprised this isn't up there already. The news is hardly talking about anything else, and it is certainly the world's current foremost political crisis across Europe and North America. Continues to be an ongoing standoff. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Things have been heating up, especially within the past few weeks and days. Might as well. Redoct87 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. There's consensus that this is an ongoing high-priority international news topic that warrants posting, whether or not war breaks out. The "failed verification" tags have been addressed as of the posting.  Sandstein   08:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support -- things are getting extraordinarily tense. It definitely deserves to be posted. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  11:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's In The News, not In The Things That Will Happen. Headlines in at least English language media for multiple times past few weeks. Would be weird to not at least put it there. Juxlos (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Continues to lead almost every prime RS site, with some offering multiple articles. Today's examples include AP, BBC. The looming question: What's Putin's game? – Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * War is now imminent. See here: "Satellite imagery obtained by CNN shows that a large base at Yelnya, which held Russian tanks, artillery and other armor, has been largely emptied, with the equipment apparently being moved much closer to the frontier in recent days.

Large amounts of weaponry were moved to the base late in 2021 before disappearing -- including some 700 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and ballistic missile launchers. Social media videos since show some of that equipment on trains and roads much further south in the Bryansk region, which is close to Ukraine."

"Meanwhile, heightened activity in the Kursk and Belgorod Oblasts, which border northeastern Ukraine, has added to concerns. "We are seeing a massive influx of vehicles and personnel in Kursk," Konrad Muzyka, an expert in tracking military movements with Rochan Consulting, warned on Twitter." Count Iblis (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * OTOH, maybe it's just Товарищ Putin's idea of a publicity stunt on steroids. You know, the doping thing. – Sca (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lars Eighner

 * Comments: With 400+ words, this is not a stub, and is not disqualified by article size. However, this needs re-structuring. A few things were only mentioned in the intro and not mentioned nor elaborated in the main body of the article. And there is no personal life section, info usually found in the personal life section are now in the career section; or perhaps it should be re-name 'life & career'. For a publishing author, info on his books should be in the career section (and a bibliography, which is missing!), not just in the intro. Materials need to be better allocated in this wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mary Ellen Duncan

 * Weak Oppose It's an oversized stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's beyond most WP:STUB measurements at 2507 bytes and 386 words of readable prose.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The death is currently referenced to a FB post. I hope this can be sourced to formal obituaries by Monday morning when college offices re-open after the weekend. More materials to expand this wikibio may be available from these obituaries. And I suspect may ask for section headers (which hopefully would make this start-class article look less like an "oversized stub"). --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial Support Death source is unreliable, dead links need to be fixed on page. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose of the 2 sources listed for her death, one uses her name, but makes no link to anything else (so no way of verifying it's actually her), and one is from Facebook, which is not a RS. We shouldn't be posting people on RD until reliable sources confirm their death. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manuel Esquivel

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is sat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Nicely expanded and doubled in size by during the past day or so. --PFHLai (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stefan Żywotko

 * More than long enough (800+ words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and with no formatting issues, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and decently referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olsen Filipaina

 * Comment His club affiliation from 1987 to 1990 is not given (same affiliation as in his 1990 championship?). When did he retire? Joofjoof (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * done – added sentence and ref re. 1987 retirement from Kiwis. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Winter Olympics

 * Strong support there was consensus for this to be added to ongoing on 4 February, and the main thing that stopped it then was the made-up rule that it must apparently be posted as a blurb first. Much better to have this on ongoing rather than the poor quality article as a blurb (if it's orange-tagged, then it should be removed from the front page). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Heavy support - It is worthy in its own right. The consensus a few days ago favored heavily for approval. PenangLion (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Posting the formal opening ceremony was purely a function of WP:ITN/R. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Olympics was what Ongoing was established for; the only question is which Olympic article to use as the target. --M asem (t) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Chronological summary of the 2022 Winter Olympics has very little text, and the text in the lead is all in the wrong tense (future tense), and leads to a WP:EASTEREGG link if posted. All of which is why 2022 Winter Olympics is the better target in my opinion (and which is why that's the one listed in this nomination). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support - It's the olympics after all CR-1-AB (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Neilson (politician born 1954)

 * Weak support just about enough content, as there is some content on him as an MP and as cabinet minister. What there is is well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Attention, please.) RD: Javier Gonzales

 * Comment: Lede needs cleanup and distribution into the body as mentioned by nominator.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Susan Shaw

 * I’ve moved nomination to date linked press coverage began. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial Support Few citations needed, other than that looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Susan Shaw (conservationist) could use some attention: The {Update section} tag and the {cn} tags need to be resolved. --PFHLai (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tags have been resolved. Star Garnet (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian McDonald (musician)

 * Support pending  - I was going to nominate this when I heard the news, but looked at his article and was too daunted to take it on. Looks like it has seen significant improvement in those 12 hours. Only thing that jumps out at me is the mostly-unsourced discography (which I still think we should be able to use the album sleeve as a source... anybody can obtain it to verify themselves). And kudos for honing on the King Crimson works and not his later pop rock ;) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The discography isn't unsourced (or, to be more accurate, unverifiable), it merely didn't have inline citations (AFAIK everything not with a direct inline cite was cited in the body anyway). However, I've popped some in. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just heading off the inevitable ITN regulars perennial comment. Pending striked, good to go. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Angle

 * Long enough (500+ words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, with no formatting concerns, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and solidly referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Davis

 * Support Iconic. Strong article. Ljgua124 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few {cn} tags that need to be addressed, and the "Unofficial releases" section has zero references. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Added more refs so this should be good to go now. cc: .  Spencer T• C 08:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Azita Raji

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is solid. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: fully sourced; no problems are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Nice work. -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy Giambi

 * Support Short but minimally adequate and decently referenced. I am assuming there will be some article expansion given the news and likely attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support would like more on his playing career, but not a blocker to RD. Star   Mississippi  02:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I will add more there. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's much better now. I could've sworn the article already had Derek Jeter's flip play, but it didn't until just now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, nicely done! Star   Mississippi  14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Mulcahy

 * Comment. Right now a bit short at 257 words and would need rapid expansion to avoid timing out, as it seems this was announced on the 8th (should the nomination be moved to that date?) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, it should be listed under the 8th. I've moved it accordingly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Bloom6132, that’s good to know! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready, well sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio is now 400+ words long and technically long enough to not be considered a stub and thus qualify for use on ITN/RD. However, the thin "Career" section makes me think what he did in his career to deserve all the accolades in the "Awards and honors" section. This article was only used as ref for the school he had attended? Can more be written on his tenure as Rutger's AD? What happened in Meadowlands during his 19 years running NJSEA? Shall we mention that he was at one time the governor's chief of staff? How did he get himself knighted and inducted to a Hall of Fame? This wikibio, imho, is technically ready for RD (except for that bare URL in refs), but it's a disappointing read, and I wish the coverage of the subject's life were a little more elaborated. --PFHLai (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Luc Montagnier

 * Comment. Combining nominations. Retaining the nom for 2/8. Updating nominator to . Ktin (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs some work. Seeing how Montagnier co-discovered HIV and was instrumental in linking HIV to AIDS, I can see how this could merit a blurb, but article needs to be fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are at least 10 {cn} tags in this wikibio that need to be resolved before the nom can proceed. This wikibio is also oddly structured: The first section is about "History of the discovery of HIV", with no info on his earlier work on retroviruses before HIV, except stating that people at his lab at Pasteur Institute had "extensive experience with retroviruses". The second section on "Personal life and death" has 3 sentences, and has little on early education and nothing on how he got to Pasteur Institute and involved in the field of retroviruses. After a short list of Awards and Honors, a "Controversies" section then takes up the second half of the wikibio. It looks like much work is needed to get this wikibio balanced and referenced for use on ITN/RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not too knowledgeable on medicine / medical research other than currently reading Jennifer Doudna's The Code Breaker book. Do we have anyone knowledgeable on this topic who can step in and help? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am tagging the only person who I have run into and might be knowledgeable on this topic, . Pardon the cold ping. Please see if you can help. Ktin (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I met him once, briefly, in the late 1980s. Sadly, the article needs some work. A few of the {cn} tags can be sourced to   but the topic remains controversial, and will need some careful (diplomatic) editing, because of the important role Robert Gallo played in the discovery of HIV and his not being recognised by the Nobel Committee. Montagnier's comments, made in his dotage,  about the origins of the covid coronavirus should not be given such prominence in my view. I don't know what the policy is on selecting ITN articles. Are ones with such obvious issues acceptable? Graham Beards (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. These issues are not acceptable for the article to move to the homepage, unfortunately. The article needs to pass hygiene expectations (referencing, citations, reasonable comprehensiveness of coverage etc.) Usually, we do have editors who can help with some work on the article. But, this one seems a tad difficult. With that, this might have to go stale. RIP Montagnier. Ktin (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not well sourced, along with other problems. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerald Williams

 * Support Decent article. Referencing is satisfactory. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per improvements made since nomination. Star   Mississippi  02:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bamber Gascoigne

 * Support The article is good to go as it stands. There's some interesting discussions on the talk page, which include input from the great man himself but these are no obstacle to sharing the latest sad news. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. No conferring. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Give us some easy RDs, you big bottom-boil!" <b style="color:#7F007F">Vyvyan333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, bonus for 10. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing looks fine (selected publications all have ISBN numbers, so are verifiable, everything else looks to have a source). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support   SN54129  13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled) Freedom Convoy 2022

 * Comment blurb seems slightly misleading; only the city of Ottawa has declared a state of emergency, and that was declared by its local mayor; Canada itself has made no such declaration. I also don't think that a state of emergency is itself newsworthy; we usually post the event that caused the state of emergency, not the state of emergency itself. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the country name to the end of the blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oposse Local news. We will talk about it if it happens at the national level, but I don't think it will come to this end. It was already said at the time that the issue of demonstrations against the COVID-19 measures were already included in Ongoing. Suggest WP:SNOW. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was WP:SNOW closed on 1 February, and don't see that it's become massively more important since then. Impact is limited to one state in one country. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought the agreed consensus for the previous nomination of this event was clearly opposed to posting the blurb? PenangLion (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The declaration of the state of emergency pushes this over the threshold for posting. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, and story is a current top story on major international news organizations. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support international news, and keeping with the Trudeau family tradition of overreacting to minor domestic issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the mayor's reaction, Trudeau simply vanished. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parochial story, already closed once, and additionally I don't see the point in publicising the activities of a number of tinfoil-hatted muppets having a tantrum. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support international news and it has became noteworthy, article is in good shape too. BastianMAT (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. Until they cross a line of actually harming others (eg as in Jan 6), it seems wise not to give them the attention they want. --M asem (t) 13:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It doesn't matter if we personally think the protests are stupid; if they're newsworthy, they're newsworthy. We ought to take them at face value. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Alsoriano, Joseph, Kite, Masem. Much ado about not much. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I was skeptical of the last nom on this topic. However, since then the protests have escalated significantly as has the global news coverage. Also, protests are not currently being covered in the main Covid article we have linked in ongoing. The capital city of a major industrial country has been effectively paralyzed by mass protests. IMO this has reached the point where it warrants a blurb at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the protest results in casualties or Trudeau's resignation. There are many unvaccinated people in the world who complain about the vaccine requirements, so there's nothing special which sets this protest apart from the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment With some of the protestors now blocking the Ambassador Bridge (among previous border blockades in the prairies, but Detroit–Windsor is the busiest crossing by far), this is going beyond the scope of the downtown Ottawa core. I could definitely see this as Ongoing should these events continue as they are. rawmustard (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Update At least the Windsor side is reopened, but the Detroit side is still closed. rawmustard (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Per WaltClip. This is not a local news story - it has been national news in Canada, sparked international headlines, and the situation has evolved significantly since last nomination. The range of the protests have expanded to shutting down/restricting access (depending on the point in time) to two international border crossings, Ambassador Bridge and Sweetgrass–Coutts Border Crossing, and the GoFundMe aspect has drawn international headlines - particularly with US politicians diving into the situation. My own feelings about how useless the COVID-19 ongoing as-is, aside - this has evolved far beyond some people waving signs around in Ottawa. Reframe and rewrite the blurb to focus on more notable events if necessary, but the state of emergency in the capital of a G7 country (as repeatedly stated by the media) is just scratching the surface of this situation - do not oppose this simply because of the wording of the blurb. Canadianerk (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Request Suggesting promotion is contingent on hurting or killing people is stupid and reckless, akin to double-dog daring; stick to level of coverage, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. We have posted far less consequential protests in the past in S. Korea, Romania and France. Why the sudden raising of the bar here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me, you're asking a tinfoil-hatted muppet, but I think the global COVID restrictions have made us all a more domestically violent people, if even only in thoughts and words. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage in the media is insufficient for posting a blurb for a protest related to the pandemic when it’s been posted to the main page for almost two years. Also, it’s very strange to argue that we’re raising the bar when we’ve already rejected multiple other similar events with even wider coverage at some point simply because the pandemic appears on the main page. However, it was a huge mistake that the box on the pandemic was removed from the top of the ITN section because we could’ve easily added a link to Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to accommodate this and other similar events. Of course, there are exceptions if a protest turns violent or results in a government change, but then the consequences make a strong argument for posting, not the protest itself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's put the box back up.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed we were talking about the minimum casualties bar (seemingly set at two by your vote). I agree these are COVID-related complications. But I could see an exception made if enough people agree the inflated coverage, big honking trucks and Canadian content set this dissimilar event apart. Ignoring other cases works for recent deaths. Why not everything? I'll support the box. Just not bloodshed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I deliberately mentioned "casualties" and "Trudeau's resignation" to hint at the exception and keep this alive. I could've easily dismissed it by arguing that COVID-19 pandemic in ongoing is enough but decided to give it a chance in case something happens compared to other similar protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I appreciate your efforts at flexibility. All I intended by listing three other differences was that physical violence and federal politics aren't the only ways for activists to be noticed. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Canadianerk, though the blurb should have some mention of what the protests are in reaction to. Morgan695 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Declaration of emergency in a G7 capital because police can't clear out thousands of protestors occupying the downtown core for over a week. Protests have now also spread to multiple international crossings with the US. Blurb needs to mention cause of protests as mentioned above. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion. An extended prominent and newsworthy protest. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting As noted, this is a top story as it is not "just" a protest, but an extended civil unrest that has disrupted the capital of a G7 nation. It is being covered around the world. Arguments of "the nomination was SNOWED last week" and "it's local" don't hold weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment Not pushing for a...pull, I guess, but I feel this was sorta railroaded. As much as the fact that this is "extended", "disruptive", and in "the capital of a G7 nation, I fail to see how that alone makes it deserving of posting. Many of the protests we post involve mass arrests or firing on protesters. As far as I can see no one has been killed, and all of 14 people in a protest of potentially tens of hundreds have been arrested. The idea that this specific event will fuel others is speculative, and it certainly isn't the first noted protest recently, much less since the start of the pandemic. As for the claims that other protests globally or even domestically were caused by this, that is speculation. I would, at the very least, lean Neutral on this and more likely oppose than support such a posting unless there was serious fallout (either solidly more arrests, shooting, or resignation of key officials within the Federal Government of Canada). Just my two cents, but I think this needs to be said in regards to posts like this going forward (because we know this won't be the last nomination of this type). DarkSide830 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I posted it because (a) it's in the news, (b) it has substantial RS coverage, (c) it has a high quality article, and (d) the opposition is not convincing. There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATH requirement for posting, nor does it need to be connected to any past or future events which would be WP:CRYSTAL assumptions anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it, it's just simply a matter of myself not being as convinced as others about some of these criteria. That I why I chose not to vote, I simply figured that I could at least add a little something worthwhile to the debate. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull, nothing actually happening, embarrassing, clearly did not have consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , as I said, most of those opposing votes have no weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if I proposed posting 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. and then everybody said, "but nothing's happening", they have no weight because they all said the same thing? Just embarrassing. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So now people agreeing with each other has no weight? I thought that was the definition of trying to acheive a consensus... but yet again, another North American article is given favourable treatment.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting concern. The blurb is vague. Is it referring to Mayor Jim Watson's declaration of a state of emergency in the city? There has also been discussion of Premier Doug Ford declaring a provincial state of emergency. It would be good to clarify who is doing the declaring. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull. Not a significant event; while coverage has been broad, it is a localized protest that has had no real impact outside of inconveniencing the city it is being held in. I also don't believe that consensus was reasonably assessed - per In the news it is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and given that I don't believe the closer presented sufficient reason to decide that most of those opposing votes have no weight. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per above. Not of sufficient significance, and it doesn't look like there is consensus for it. Slightly confused as to why Oppose votes have been deemed to have "no weight". It's just a subjective decision like most others. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:ITSLOCAL and "it was SNOWED a week ago" have no weight – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSLOCAL doesn't appear to apply here; it's an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, as locality doesn't affect notability, but it can affect significance when we are considering an article inclusion ITN. As for the sole argument that referenced the previous WP:SNOW discussion, their position was not that this should be rejected because it "SNOWED a week ago", but because they do not believe there has been any change in significance since then, which is an appropriate argument and should not be given no weight. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , when I say ITSLOCAL, I'm referring to what it says above. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. And, WP:CCC, so relying on a close from last week has no relevance either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See . BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull Not significant per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull delibrately ignoring one set of people is not objective. Not enough evidence has been given of a significant impact of this to gain an actual consensus for posting (if you actually ibjectively look for a consensus rather than declaring half the votes as apparently invalid). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've already opposed, so you're effectively !voting twice. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, complaining about the method of how something is posted is different from supporting/opposing the nomination in the first place. They are completely different, stop trying to use bureaucracy to annoy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that none of the other editors who used a bolded "Pull" had previously expressed an opinion on the nom. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not deliberately ignore a set of people, I deliberately ignored votes that have no policy basis, which is how consensus is formed. It's not a vote count. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major protests generating international headlines and influencing anti-public health sentiments in other parts of the world. Clearly no longer just a local story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Local news arguments and last week's situation should be discounted (not all Opposes). One is not true and the other is irrelevant. Significance is explained in various article sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Although I obviously see articles biased to my location local to this protest, it has seen numerous articles about it in numerous international news sources within the current 24-hour cycle, such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, Washington Post, Times of India, New York Times... I could go on. However, I think that it may be worth discussing adding Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic to ongoing if there is such a divide over singling out the Canadian one. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 01:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the DM should automatically disqualify this, but even then, this is a COVID story, and thus covered under the COVID ongoing, it does not need any more special attention as much as any other COVID story presented over the past 2-some years. --M asem (t) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)x
 * Mangeshkar's death was a COVID story, too, no DQ. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it wasn't. It was about her contribution to Bollywood and Indie's entertainment industry and the recognition of it in her death. And in this case, at least myself and others are acknowledging if this turned violent or caused a major political shift like Trudeau's resignation, that would make it a blurb as that goes beyond a simple COVID story. But right now its typical - beyond the fact its not in the US and in a major city center - of demonstrations that have gone on for the last two years rejecting mask and vaccine mandates from COVID. --M asem (t) 01:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs are all about her mild symptoms and aggressive treatment. That's a fact. Why this protest matters (or could matter) more is a matter of opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also to remind editors: we don't care how much coverage a story gets (as we are not a news ticker) only that it is in the news to quality for posting. There are lots of stories that get widespread international coverage on the day-to-day that do not make sense for ITN to cover as the topic likes encyclopedic significance (but can be covered at the Current Events portal). --M asem (t) 01:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How does one determine the significance of a story without looking at how much coverage it is getting? Just use our own personal biases? Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We consider 1) what's already in the box such as ongoing stories and 2) consider what are enduring stories that likely have long-term encyclopedic impact rather thhan news impact. That requires using news as sopurces but not necessarily the same weight that news gives the topics. And we also should work to eliminate systematic bias resulting from the majority of news sources heavily covering Western events. --M asem (t) 01:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good for people deciding to post this. I recommend once this drops out of the blurb timeframe, the Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered to be added to ongoing.  188.27.42.181 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Until it inspires something of meaningful historical note. Also, as a minor note: the state of emergency was declared on February 6, not the 8th. So, this nomination is under the incorrect date, as I understand it? I don't know if that matters anymore now that it's already on the front page right now. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the liberation of France meaningful or minor? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The point above is that protests related to covid, unless they turn violent or create direct political results, are effective covered by the covid ongoing. I would agree that if world wide protests grew to a size similar to the BLM protests of 2020, then there might be something more, but these collectively still aren't very big and haven't changed politics yet. --M asem (t) 19:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're projecting things. Parasol's major point was only about waiting till it inspired something of meaningful historical note, which I believe The New York Times suggests this potential French revolution already is, by virtue of fitness to print in America. If you don't want to answer my question and only interrupt, that's fine, I'll assume you chose "minor". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you are talking about speculation about something major happening from this, which ITN also does not use as a metric. Even if major RSes suggest it is a major effect, we are still looking for something more significant and quantifiable. --M asem (t) 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I already told you what we (not you) were talking about. Meaningful historical note. If you can't pay attention, don't play along, and don't invent other people's positions (opponents or proponents). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For me? I do not believe it of meaningful historical note yet. The NYT article also points out similar protests in Paris over the summer. One confirmed copy-cat in a city that has a history of protests against restrictions doesn't move my position at the moment. I may change my mind by the time the Paris protests officially commune on Friday, depends. These other mentioned calls to action in the article are promising candidates for changing my oppose here. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I will make one last comment here. I saw support votes with good rationale and opposing votes that dismissed this as "local" and "parochial", or by not meeting a certain threshold of casualties and PM resignations. If another admin wants to pull this, they can. I will not as I think there is still a consensus in favor, though it is weaker now than it was when I posted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull -- This should not have been posted, there was not consensus at the time of posting. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It is clear that there is and was no consensus to post this, with the consensus only being seen by giving no weight to certain !votes despite no policy or guideline based reason to do so. However, the posting admin is unwilling to withdraw this and that raises the question of where to take this next; the normal location would be WP:AN, but that process is too long for ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You were thinking of taking this to AN because I made a decision that you don't like that I've explained here and on my talk page to you? I stand by my view of the consensus when I posted it and Stephen's decision to pull. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To assess the close, per Closing discussions, not to assess you as an editor or admin. However, that is now unneeded, due to Stephen's decision to pull. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled, the tide has turned on consensus for this story. Stephen 04:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling comment – Significance trumps coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Significance can only be determined by coverage; there is no other source of evidence. I can only know about things by reading them. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, ITN only requires a minimum bar of coverage for inclusion, the rest of it becomes a matter of discussion and consensus of where the topic fits into our goal as an encyclopedia, to cover topics from across the globe and from all areas of interest, and to avoid systematic biases that come from 24/7 news coverage of politics, entertainment, and sports that primarily favor the Western world. Using "Significance being proportion to coverage" is the road to ITN being a news ticker. Of course, the more coverage something has, the better quality article I expect to see. And we still have Current Events portal linked into the box for all other major news stories. --M asem (t) 13:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop inventing things I never said, and then contradicting the thing I never said, and then pretending like that somehow contradicts me. I would have hoped you were better than that.  What I said was that I need to read sources to learn about the significance of things.  The coverage of an event is where I learn about its significance.  To ignore the source material (coverage) seems counter to Wikipedia's core ethos.  I don't matter.  My opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is what I can demonstrate by evidence in reliable source material.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Further the affiant sayeth naught. 'Cuz it's all been said before. Bonne journée, mes amis. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how stark the differences of schools of thought are between and, and how they alternately dominate the discourse surrounding ITN nominations, depending both on local consensus and the presence of participants. I'm reminded of the stark dichotomies of Plato vs Aristotle. WaltCip- (talk)  15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Re-post - Canada is not a Third World country; the state of emergency due to civil unrest is very significant by any standard. STSC (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear anyone suggest that Canada was a third-world country. As far as I recall, this (3,700-word) discussion was about a contrived truck traffic jam in Canada and its perceived significance elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless we're planning to post every time any city declares a state of emergency, posting this based on the state of emergency is a WP:BIAS in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that Ottawa (being the capital of Canada) declaring a state of emergency due to civil unrest (not due to a storm or flood, etc.) is a significant event in a developed country like Canada. STSC (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Significance trumps coverage." could you please link to the relevant policy which cites that criteria? Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep pulled. Are we supposed to post every little thing that happens in every city in every country, just because a state of emergency has been declared? I don't think so. This is essentially a traffic jam in Ottawa, and unless they overthrow the entire government of Canada, this has no significant impact on any country. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support re-posting - This is the powder keg issue of the year for Canada with reverberations large and small. I understand there was some deliberate look-away by the media at the beginning but even international sources now cover this extensively.CoatCheck (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep pulled Just because a state of emergency has been declared in one city does not mean that this event is significant enough to post on ITN. If there was actual rioting with large scale damage to property or people, I would reconsider. Chaosquo (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be judging this very complex story solely on the proposed blurb, not even the pulled one. I ask you click the link and reconsider after reading at least some of everything else beside the (unprecedented) state of emergency. Not mandatory, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The event is also globally significant because of the vaccination issues involved. It really concerns all other countries and I think they would be observing closely such impacts of implementing the vaccination policies during this pandemic. STSC (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been true throughout the pandemic, though. All sorts of momentous things have occurred which under normal circumstances, as isolated events, would merit posting but which become ongoing and widespread in these highly unusual times. This is why we have the sticky ongoing link to COVID-19 (and earlier, the special box, which I opposed removing) and we don't keep posting individual stories. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4,300 words. – Sca (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – The AP, in an update filed around 19:50, reported that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Prince Edward Island have announced plans to roll back some or all Covid precautions – Sca (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ontario doesn't care! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WOW! WaltCip- (talk)  21:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Comments above were made when there was only one proposed blurb. The altblurb was added on 9 February 2022‎ at 23:55 UTC, with |this diff Chrisclear (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-post the posting admin was correct in their assertion that opposed based on "not internationally significant" are invalid as we have specific guidance against that consideration. The posting admin was also correct in dismissing opposes based solely that the previous nomination had been closed (laughably in just four hours by someone who was later involved in opposing this nom). If WP:CONSENSUS is not just a !vote count, then there was conensus to post at the time it was done. Conseqeuntially pull !votes contesting that the original consensus was invalid are themselves invalid and thus there is still strong consensus to post this item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-post with copycat protests in New Zealand, France, and Australia, this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both proposed blurbs The first blurb specifically mentions a state of emergency in Ottawa. However the States of emergency in Canada article shows that various parts of Canada have entered a state of emergency quite frequently, with 2015 being the most recent year when this did not take place. It's a quasi-routine action taken by the executive branch of government. If anything is to be posted, then it should be the reason for the state of emergency, not the state of emergency itself.
 * The second blurb mentions that the Canadian protests are inspiring similar protests worldwide. This claim is highly dubious. The non-Canadian protests are barely mentioned in the Freedom Convoy 2022 article, and the sources provided allude to causation, when it's merely spurious correlation. While there may be some truth to this claim, similar protests have been taking place for months in other countries. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to a nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chrisclear (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the six sources currently crammed in the middle paragraph of "Other protests" vouch for inspiration, if not causation, often using forms of that word (in various languages). Pedestrian protests are old hat. Canada got the convoy ball rolling, at least in this era. And disaster emergencies are normal. But protest emergencies are new. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out those six sources, four of which I overlooked previously. However I'm struggling to see why a "convoy protest" is more notable than a pedestrian protest. Chrisclear (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Trucks are larger, louder and harder to move than people. Truckers are also somewhat notorious for their ability to take a seat and withstand boredom for the long haul. All fine attributes for real extended persuasion, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As a comment, the alt blurb (relating the dropping of mandates) is improper correlation with causation. While news sources reported the dropping of mandates and mention the convoy in the same article, I've not seen any specific statement that specifically states the mandates were being dropped due to the convoy. There's a possiblility that may be the case, but we can't jump that leap of logic. So it is is bad synthesis for us to even approach that. --M asem (t) 05:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said "as", suggesting only correlation, nothing like "because". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is leading to synthesis given the lack of space for context, it creates the impression to the reader "B happened because of A". --M asem (t) 05:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by space for context. If you can add it, go ahead. We can't be held responsible for people who read too fast or replace the written conjunctions in their heads, though, that's on them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is As the Freedom Convoy 2022 inspires similar protests worldwide, four provinces scrap COVID-19 vaccination mandates in Canada any clearer, with a comma between A and B? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, however then I (and maybe other editors too?) would question the notability/significance of a sub-national government deciding to end vaccination mandates. Chrisclear (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They're four governments, each with a separate monarchy, equal to the federal government's under the Crown. Canada is hard to explain sometimes. I give up for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose second blurb because it implies the provinces dropped the vaccine mandates due to the protests, when it is readily evident to anyone who does any research that the vaccine mandates were on course for being dropped anyways. I don't like the first blurb either simply because of its emphasis on the "state of emergency".  There are many municipal states of emergency in Canada every year (e.g. Toronto declares one every time a bad snowstorm hits); the previously linked article States of emergency in Canada only bothers listing provincial ones because municipal emergencies are not newsworthy, as this one is.  I am not opposed to a blurb about the protests that sticks to the facts, for example: "Anti-vaccine mandate protests in Ottawa, Canada, inspire other protests across the country which shut down major highways and international border crossings."  However, I'd like to point out that these protests are not dissimilar from the 2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests, which did not get posted to ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Owen

 * Support Short but adequate and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abhijatabhivamsa

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing appears solid though I don't read Burmese and therefore can't make any judgments on the quality of the sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerome Chazen

 * Not Ready Article is little more than oversized stub. And frankly, I'm not sure the subject even passes WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've taken it as far as I think I can given sourcing so no issue if someone wants to remove the nomination. Step beyond my tech abilities Star   Mississippi  21:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unless someone wants to take it to AfD. It's just long enough to not be a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is barely more than a stub, and says almost nothing about his life- there's 3 sentences on his company. The fact there's more on his philanthropy (which is basically just advertising for him) is not acceptable for a complete, NPOV biographical article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * not the creator, although I did most of the updates. My guess is that because much of his tenure at Liz Claiborne was pre internet, there isn't much in the way of online sourcing. What I can find about his life beyond philanthropy isn't worth adding to the article, and wouldn't particularly help with balance. Star   Mississippi  22:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , there is plenty of pre-Internet coverage. Newspapers.com is a great resource you can get access to from the Wikipedia Library. Here's a source that I clipped for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Waiting to be re-whitelisted for the library (username blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia) and when I am will go through and flesh out what I can. I do think he's notable regardless of whether he's ITN eligible so there will be time even if I miss this window Star   Mississippi  23:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated it with some background on his bio from the WWD piece. I believe stub issues are resolved Star   Mississippi  15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Batsirai

 * Support biggest cyclone of the year so far, coverage of the high impact in major news sources many days after the main impacts occurred. Article is well sourced and lots of information too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment could we fix up the blurb a bit? I don't mind adding it to ITN, but I would not support having one as plain as that on there. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in the choice of picture, which is worth 1000 words. Here's some alternative views which also show Madagascar.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Y'all know the drill; what are the casualties and damage? Until we know the impact of this storm, wait.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently over 20 deaths. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would (sadly) be enough. WaltCip- (talk)  15:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As of 15:30, BBC, Guardian, AlJazeera, DW and our Madagascar article said "at least 10." ReliefWeb, a UN organization, said "at least 20." – Sca (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Fairly noteworthy as far a Madagascar cyclones go. I think impact is solid enough even with the discrepancy over deaths (which, if desired to be added to the blurb, could always be appended later from "at least 10" to a more precise number). The blurb does need to be adjusted regardless though, but this event should be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, submitted an altblurb which matches the usual format we use; the main blurb contains next to no useful information about the storm and uses unencyclopedic language. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until at least some major RS news sites corroborate UN agency ReliefWeb's report of 20+ fatalities. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Thanks. Going with the 10+ RS toll is prudent for now. It can always be revised. – Sca (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment To posters and editors - we have sourcing for 20+ deaths. Some examples: Washington Post, Al Jazeera, ABC News,The Times UK Canadianerk (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment RS say 20+ death in Madagascar Al jazzeera Washington Post  HurricaneEdgar    02:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose for now The blurb is incorrect, as the impact of the cyclone extends to more countries, not only Madagascar. That 45,000 people have been forced to be displaced I don't think is the most relevant thing and 20 deaths I don't think meets the minimum standard of deaths to be published on the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that we post lots of blurbs about events where no one dies. There is no requirement that a certain number of people die before it becomes main page worthy.  The Winter Olympics, for example, was posted, and I'm not aware of any deaths there.  If you wish there to be such a standard, please start a discussion somewhere and establish consensus for your new standard.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to clarify that I was referring to natural disasters and attacks on people… _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Where would you put that number and why? WaltCip- (talk)  13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no standard number of deaths for "natural disasters and attacks on people". I did not qualify the types of articles in my response because I wanted to be as inclusive as possible.  There are no standard number of deaths at all on any kind of article, which would include "natural disasters and attacks on people".  If you wish to establish such a standard, start a discussion and get a consensus for it.  Otherwise, there's no valid, policy-based reason to object to a standard you made up that doesn't exist.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For God's sake...you are long time users in Candidates, are you really surprised by what I am saying? In all nominations related to disasters, their viability has been questioned depending on the number of deaths and damages they cause. And it doesn't matter if this is written as a standard or not. Considering the inclusion of, for example, an earthquake that only results in the death of one or two people, rips away the sense of notability/ITN worthy of MP. I will not open a debate on something that is always under debate in every nomination of this type. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have stated there is a "minimum standard" that this nomination does not meet. You did not specify where that minimum standard is, thereby making your argument 100% conjecture. WaltCip- (talk)  16:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As WaltCip says, can you show me the place where I can read about this minimum standard you keep alluding to? I'd like to apply it fairly myself, but first I would need to read about it so I know what it is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can show you where I say that these "standards" are not written: a few lines above. Even in Law, there are things that are done as a "standard" even if they are not written. By custom, as a result of consensus. And this is the case: nominations related to disasters tend to prosper or not depending on the number of fatalities they cause. You can look it up for yourselves in the previous nominations that have taken place, in many of them you have even participated in the debate. I can't be any clearer than that. This debate is ridiculous. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, AlJazeera attributes 20+ toll to unnamed "officials" – officials of what it doesn't say. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Reuters say death toll in Madagascar 29 death need update in main page 'Everything is gone': Madagascans face destitution in cyclone's wake  HurricaneEdgar    02:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Don Johnston

 * Stale – death (on February 4) was actually announced the next day by CBC News. That means the provable gap of at least two days, which would allow for date of announcement rather than date of death, has not been satisfied.  Move to close the nom as stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syl Johnson

 * Is there anything to prevent this one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Crumb

 * Strong Support,* maybe even blurb (though probably not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:5970:62B6:6A15:2865 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Save the blurb for George Crum and his crisps. Joofjoof (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD article looks fine, although the "Notable students" section needs more sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the students got sources, - sadly, their Wikipedia article articles didn't have those sources, room for improvement if someone has the time --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Well sourced, article quality improved. Grimes2 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The text sections look sufficiently sourced. The Works section is cited to his publisher's catalogue, but his earlier works may not be in print. Joofjoof (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a ref for some of the early ones, and added it to those. it has also the line "When Crumb graduated from high school, he already had composed about forty pieces". Can we perhaps assume in good faith that the composer's website is correct about the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just added a source for unpublished works - between these two, I think the Works section is good to go now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, - anything missing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Neuenfels

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Africa Cup of Nations

 * Oppose Some gaps in referencing as well as a decided lack of text regarding the actual matches. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb it’s a significant event and we normally post these type of blurbs although issues listed above could be worked on. - <font color="White"> Hamza Ali Shah    Talk 09:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No sourced text on major events in the overall competition, currently 2021 Africa Cup of Nations is bolded. Tables and brackets of results is not sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Preumably, it'd be more manageable to improve 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final, and make that the bolded article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose normally for sports tournaments, we bold the specific article on the final. 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final needs more sources, and an actual match summary (rather than one line of unsourced text, as is the case currently). And 2021 Africa Cup of Nations has no tournament/final summary text either, so wouldn't be an appropriate target either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is not yet sufficient for main page posting. We need a prose synopsis of the tournament and important matches (such as the final).  If someone fixes that, we can post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The tournament article is a mass of tables and far from suitable. The article on the final is far closer to a postable state, but the 'summary' section needs to have more than one sentence on what happened. Expand that to a fully-referenced paragraph and deal with the unreferenced pre-match section, then we can proceed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose,Africa cup of Nations is a significant event and should be in ITN, but the article needs work, per above. Alex-h (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The final is now bolded, as the reference tag is resolved and ArsenalGhanaPartey has added a match synopsis. Joofjoof (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I've significantly expanded the Match section, and the lead if that helps, and improved other parts of the article. The citation issue has also been resolved. I also suggest we change the article to "Africa Cup of Nations 2021 Final", since that is basically what we are posting. Basically, the article is ready now. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * looks good, thanks for addressing those issues. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Hellström

 * Support Sourced, 5222 characters (869 words) "readable prose size". Grimes2 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate length and decent referencing. No major issues. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Blurb: Lata Mangeshkar

 * Support on significance, oppose due to article quality - 1 CN tag, and the "Early Life" and "Bengali Career" are partially unsourced. In my opinion, this may be significant enough for a blurb. Tube·of·Light 04:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for a blurb on significance. Oppose for now due to the sourcing problems mentioned above.  Java Hurricane  05:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on quality as well thanks to the hard work of ; thank you!  Java Hurricane  06:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Waiting a little longer while the issues Stephen identified are fixed.  Java Hurricane  08:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb once article is in a ready state. Ktin (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed quite a few refs. I think the article is there. In the meantime if someone can request temporary edit protection that would be good. and  are doing a good job of reverting vandals. Ktin (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb as issues seems to be resolved now 2402:3A80:681:F405:7EC2:C63E:F930:EEC1 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many paragraphs that lack a single reference, and many long dense paragraphs that have a single reference at the end. Stephen 07:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * please help to stop vandalism at the article. 2402:3A80:684:F7B3:4D8C:9491:DC34:DAC2 (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please help to fix remaining few new issues. 2402:3A80:684:F7B3:4D8C:9491:DC34:DAC2 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is done. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb - Article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - Article looks pretty good and she was top of her field as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb top of her field, and looks to have won the highest honour in India and France. Note: I removed one of the updaters as they're a blocked sock, per WP:DENY. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still unreferenced materials in the Singing_career section, 1970s and 1990s. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * filled the tags. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: In principle (till the referencing/other formatting issues are fixed). Noting [might also help with sourcing]:
 * Indian vocalist. India's greatest Bollywood "playback" singer (Encyclopedia of India), Credited with having the world's most recorded voice (Dictionary of Women Worldwide), Legendary Indian playback vocalist (see Filmi), hailed as the supreme voice of Indian popular music and the Queen of Bollywood (Donald Clarke), Prolific megastar playback singer central to Hindi film music for the past four decades. (Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema), legendary Indian playback singer noted for her distinctive voice and a vocal range that extended over more than three octaves. (Britannica). Gotitbro (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Missing coverage in the wikiarticle? Please add to the wikiarticle. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I think we need to be much stricter with including deceased in blurb. Lately it seems to me that we have the standard too low. Even if she was perhaps India's most important singer (I don't dispute that), I don't think she is someone who has had the international impact that the people who may have previously been included may have had. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD but Oppose blurb on quality - The article is in poor shape to give the reader the impression that this is field-defining figure; her career is just a step away from proseline and while there's some attempt at a bit of legacy, it really doesn't give any impression beyond being one with a record-number of recordings (which itself alone is not transformative in the field). There's probably more that can be written and fixed up to make this better for this purpose from bios to get this to a state that a blurb would be then appropriate, but the article should be in better quality for that reason. But for a standard RD, we're fine. --M asem  (t) 14:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. All the tags have now been filled. I truly believe the article is good to go to homepage at this point. Of course it is not a WP:FA or a WP:GA but meets minimums imo. Ktin (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to insufficient international notability; the same reason that Betty White shouldn't have been posted. We need to be more choosy in regard to which entertainers are blurbed. Jim Michael (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not challenging your opinion. BBC CNN CNN Dawn The West Australian Sydney Morning Herald Straits Times Deutsche Welle New York Times -- all of them seem to disagree. Ktin (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * and see above the international coverage from major news and media around the world. Thank you. 2402:3A80:684:F7B3:4D8C:9491:DC34:DAC2 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That merely shows international media coverage, due to many fans in many countries. Thousands of entertainers, including Sarah Harding, Michael K. Williams & James Michael Tyler, received that - no-one suggested blurbing their deaths. That's very different from international notability, which is indicated by winning major international awards. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Previously held Guinness World Records, Bharat Ratna from India and Legion of Honour from France.2402:3A80:684:F7B3:4D8C:9491:DC34:DAC2 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With due respect, there is no necessity for "major" international awards whatever that means. Ktin (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For an entertainer, having major entertainment awards (such as Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Palme d'Ors, Grammys & Tonys) from multiple countries should be the bar for a blurb. Over 99% of enterainers shouldn't be considered. Popularity shouldn't be enough. Jim Michael (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will let you re-read that comment and the examples that you have given (Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Palme d'Ors, Grammys & Tonys) to understand how biased your view seems to be. Ktin (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're implying that because they're all awards from the Western world that I must have a pro-Western bias. Winning major relevant awards from multiple countries in other parts of the world would also be valid, but she doesn't have those. She has great popularity & success in her home country & has fans in many others. That makes her a domestic figure with some international popularity. I opposed Betty White being blurbed for the same reason. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A point is that our article should use sources to explain why having multiple international awards is why she is a highly regarded entertainment figure. Simply by virtue of having many international awards and pleading to "well, that's important!" is not really good enough for helping our readers to understand why we single these people our for blurbs. (Also, we absolutely should ignore Guinness records and other superlative aspects unless documented as part of a person's legacy). --M asem (t) 16:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been a bystander here when you all have been bickering about US vs the UK biases all these days. If you now want to emphasize that this article can not make it to the homepage as a blurb because she has not won an Academy award or a BAFTA -- this is frankly ridiculous! Ktin (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on significance, I haven't yet had time to evaluate quality. The influence playback singers had isn't easily understood if you're unfamiliar with Bollywood. Mangeshkar, by all accounts, was the leading playback singer in Bollywood for decades, with a reach far beyond just India. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The linked BBC article in the nom gives multiple convincing reasons for why her body of work merits a blurb and not just a RD (e.g. state funeral, national days of mourning, length/amount of work). Also, in respect to internationality, besides India, she was widely popular in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and among overseas South Asian diaspora. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notability is clear and article quality is decent. Given the length of the article the referencing is actually rather impressive for a change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The obits did not disclose any transformative impact, superior musical technique or the like. It seems that she was famous for being ever-present in the consciousness of the Indian public, which I don't think is sufficient to simply be an icon for being everywhere. Also, as Masem noted, the biography is basically just a list of songs and doesn't explain how they changed the landscape of the field at all. Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb She has been the voice of 1.5 billion human beings for more than seventy years. Her voice accompanied a whole subcontinent from birth celebrations to funerals. Her singing technique has set the standard for all singers of her time and those who came after her. Singing in high pitch was not the common standard in indian classical music before her and she was even criticised for it early in her career. It's highly probable that if someone has listened to just one Hindi song that it was one sung by her. Her fans were in the diaspora and she was heard in the Soviet Union, the Middle East, Subsaharan Africa and South East Asia for decades when Indian cinema was the only foreign cinema available in those regions. Is she doesn't get a blurb then no other indian artist will ever deserve to get one. She was by far the most popular celebrity in India across four generations. In terms of notability for an artist we haven't done better and probably never will Varoon2542 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Oppose Photo She was a highly influental figure in India. However, I belive that the photo for the opening ceremony of Beijing 2022 is much more important. Hcoder3104 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: We don't pick photos by importance. We pick photos by the topmost blurb for which there is a photo available.  As this is currently the topmost blurb, it is the one that gets the photo.  If we get another blurb with a valid photo, we'll update the photo at that time.  See In_the_news, which has the text The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb. The picture's caption and the parenthetical (pictured) direct readers to the context for the picture.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Pull COVID-related event, like those in Ongoing. And yes, the blurb itself neatly omits the cause, setting and circumstances. But the underlying article sure doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond A. Jordan

 * Long enough (500+ words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and no concerns with formatting, this wikibio is READY for RD. Please be encouraged to nominate this for DYK while it is still eligible. The "the first African-American from outside Boston to be elected to Massachusetts's legislature" bit looks like solid DYK hook material, especially during Black History month. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment His 18 years in the federal government are covered in one sentence. This is probably due to a lack of online coverage before 2012, but it would be nice to have some more details. Joofjoof (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great idea—I've added a bit more. Thanks for the suggestion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is good for now. Support Joofjoof (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ibrahim Sutar

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a sufficient length, covering work and biographical details. Joofjoof (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Honderich

 * Long enough (500+ words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and properly formatted, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is solid. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientum. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jason Epstein

 * Long enough (700+ words), with no concerns regarding its formatting and footnoting, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yale Kamisar

 * The body does not mention his influence on Miranda rights, nor indeed is he mentioned in that article. Stephen 01:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting that! Should be resolved now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashley Bryan

 * Not Ready for the usual reason . -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe that's all of the missing cites. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Well done . -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Can someone have a look at the image in the infobox, please? Not sure if the license is okay. There is no OTRS/VRT screening. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The uploader attempted to leave a documentation on the image's talk page at the time of uploading, so there is definitely no ticket, but it's possible to maybe get one filed if someone did the legwork? I don't know? I do not have extensive experience in images. My best solution for now is I removed the image until the image permissions is resolved. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is our approach that we leave it until OTRS validates it and brings it down if it is not sufficient / appropriate? i.e. leave as-is until we know different? Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah! Is that the typical way of it? I wasn't aware. As admitted, I don't have extensive experience in images and their processes. Also, I generally prefer to err on caution. I have the same question, though: is that considered appropriate for a main page appearance? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on this topic either. I might be wrong too. Seems like there is an email of some form that is available here that just needs to be forwarded to OTRS and have a volunteer clerk validate the note? Ktin (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to leave the pic out for the time being; it's out already, anyway. Please be encouraged to get WP:OTRS involved soon. They may give the OK to use the pic while this RD is on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai this image was uploaded in 2009 - was OTRS a requirement at the time? Joofjoof (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the requirements were in 2009. The issue now is whether the image has the right license for use in Wikipedia. If the license is not appropriate, I'd rather hide it when the article is listed on RD/MainPage. Those folks at OTRS would know what to do with the image licensing, I hope. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ktin OTRS requires a direct email from the original photographer. This was the issue with Zara Rutherford's photos. Joofjoof (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Makes sense. I thought these folks had that email from the photographer. Seems like they have not added OTRS to that thread? Ktin (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how it looks to me - maybe User:ErinHowarth can help. Joofjoof (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2022 Winter Olympics

 * I think the best approach here is to post the opening ceremony, when it rolls off the box, we put ongoing. Provided the articles are ok, of course. --Tone 08:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose that article the chronological summary is just a list with no sources. Unless it's actually fixed to have some summary text in it (days -2 and -1 have already happened, so could have more written about them), then we shouldn't post that poor quality article. Also, I know this comes around every Olympics, but why not just post 2022 Winter Olympics instead, since that article is decent quality and has links to all the other sports? This is what we do for e.g. the COVID-19 ongoing (rather than postimg a messy summary page). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Giving no opinion of it, I believe the idea is that the event is so big that the main overview article cannot be appropriately updated or reflect the day-to-day ongoing nature, so the simpler text summary is used for the ongoing status. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support adding 2022 Winter Olympics article onto ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We had a similar issue with the Summer Olympics, the chronological summary is not a good article to link to on the front page. My proposal was to link to the main event article, and then put the medal table into brackets, since thats what most people will be interest in while the event is going on. It was eventually added during the Summer Games. jonas (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on these conditions: We can place that in the ongoing section, but the link should be 2022 Winter Olympics. Dunutubble (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support for main article. Albrecht (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as well as support posting now vs after the Opening Ceremony. The Games are already going on, waiting until the ceremony is unnecessary and arguably incorrect. To me the chronological does pose the biggest updates possibility, but it may be more helpful to viewers to link to the main 2022 Olympics page, and also agree per Joseph that the state of the article is a plus here. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The opening ceremony was over before you wrote that comment, so the point is moot, but we could have theoretically posted two days ago. Kingsif (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait – Until there's enough info to qualify in terms of significance or impact. The mere fact of opening is a yawn. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now; it's useful information that readers will want. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support main article - clearly newsworthy, article is fine, global significance. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting of 2022 Winter Olympics only. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support main article - clearly newsworthy. --Znuddel (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posted a blurb, wait until it rolls off, then we put it to ongoing if the article is ok. --Tone 15:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have a formal rule that an item cannot be posted to ongoing if a blurb related to the event is posted at the same time or vice versa. Also, note that the blurb reports about the opening ceremony. By the way, Urša and Nika were great today, and their performance was very inspiring. :)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, indeed, they were :D But it makes little sense to have two links to the Olympics article in the same box, since we already try to be compact. --Tone 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing, after blurb has run its course.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Linking to 2022 Winter Olympics. STSC (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously worthy for now. PenangLion (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has useful information. Alex-h (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on the article if it's going to be so prominently featured. The article was riddled with grammar and other copy errors when I just checked it.  I tried to fix some.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with Main Article, noticing that it's close to cycling, and with it having been going for a while, we should post this to ongoing. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - Consensus to post, using 2022 Winter Olympics as the target. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Opening ceremony of the 2022 Winter Olympics

 * Wait until it actually happens (1200-1400 UTC today), and then details about ot can actually be added before we post it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually happens, then support. As a sidenote, per MOS:LINKSTYLE China should not be linked, with the link looking like so: Beijing, China. BSMRD (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just Beijing would be the correct form for a major world city like that, right? I could be mistaken. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be. If my reading is correct I think either is fine. BSMRD (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think, considering the item as well as link style, this is not just an event in Beijing, but a major world event hosted by China, so mentioning China is worthwhile. Kingsif (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, the Olympics are open. However, the article on the opening ceremony is thin. We can bold the main article instead, it looks fine. --Tone 14:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The ITNR is the ceremony article, not the Olympics one. --M asem (t) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until there's enough info to qualify in terms of significance or impact. The mere fact of opening is a yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Take that up with ITN/R? Kingsif (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yugo. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: The event has accoured, and the short blurb will allow for the lengthening of the Italian election blurb, also removing the coup blurb, which has been up for much too long. Hcoder3104 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article has not yet been updated, so we shouldn't consider posting until it's updated. We have almost no information in the article about the opening ceremony itself (like what was in it, who did key speeches, ceremony team are still listed as TBD). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support since it has happened now, the Olympics opening is probably the most uncontroversial ITN:R item there is. jonas (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support main article - clearly newsworthy, article is fine, global significance. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article has been updated since the last time I checked. It is not extensive but contains all relevant things. --Tone 13:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ZZZzzzz. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your useful as always insight....... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cordial collegial comments. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donny Gerrard

 * Long enough (450+ words). Footnotes seem adequate. No problems with formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A little on the short side but sufficient in my view.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christos Sartzetakis

 * Oppose per nominator. I'm working on his article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this, Alsoriano97. --PFHLai (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * work done! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alsoriano97. Nicely done! This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. I took the liberty to cross out the previous "oppose" from Feb.6th. Thanks, again. --PFHLai (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as updater. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Moore (baseball executive)

 * Weak Support Neither article length nor referencing wow me. But I think they are minimally adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , just found this, incorporating more info now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (400+ words). Referencing seems adequate. No problems with formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD to me., are you still adding to the wikipage? --PFHLai (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * not any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Posted now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dieter Mann

 * Weak Support Not impressed by the article length. But I think it is, barely, adequate. Referencing is good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as updater I thought about working on this article so I could nominate it for ITN, but beat me to it! Great work on expanding this article! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Trude Feldman

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too many citation needed tags. AryKun (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Citations needed, fixes needed.BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) Blurb/RD: Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi

 * Note - I've changed this to a blurb nomination instead of just RD. -- KTC (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note. I've added an alt blurb reflecting that he killed himself during the raid . It is similar to the blurb we ran after Al-Baghdadi did the same thing . (And I support a blurb for the record.) Calidum  14:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The death section needs some expansion. But in principle I support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - A leader of a famous terror organization getting murder should be/is notable CR-1-AB (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb he's the leader of that lot, and so similar to other terrorist leaders' deaths that we've posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb or Alt blurb II as it would appear from BBC reports that he detonated a device himself, the article is in decent shape and I'm presuming the death section will be expanded in the coming hours Josey Wales Parley 16:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The bio's only had a two-sentence update and a one-sentence repetition in the lead, which is well short of the guidance at WP:ITN. —Cryptic 16:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is being a high-ranking terrorist truly a transformative role along the same lines as Mandela or Thatcher? I wonder if maybe a blurb is a bit too much in this context. --WaltCip- (talk)  17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. This is clearly an example of "death as the main story." Calidum  18:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but people around here seem to think that suicides don't qualify as "death as main story", as evidenced in previous nominations. I want to know if we're being consistent or not. WaltCip- (talk)  18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference where someone kills themselve because they feel suicidal through depression etc. and someone blowing themselves (and others) up because they were about to be captured by a(nother) country's special forces. -- KTC (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape; and the story is the raid that killed him, which is why this should be a blurb. Since his manner of death is itself noteworthy, then a blurb to explain the manner of death is why this should have a blurb.  Had he died of natural causes, this would be an RD item instead. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. I prefer Alt blurb II. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a blurb, not RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added more info about the raid and his death.  Spencer T• C 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major story, and the article is of good quality and sufficiently updated. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added apparent missing verb to primary blurb proposal. Would it be worth considering a third: "... is killed during a US military raid..."? Not personally sure if it's meaningful enough of a suggestion to add to the box, but if someone thinks it is, add it in. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Current sourcing of article seems rather shallow. Half a dozen RS links added above. – Sca (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Leader of ISIS killed, essentially means one of the world's most wanted terrorist has been killed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 as there seems to be some debate over how he died, but not the fact that it was during a US attack. I've not checked the update (no time now). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough for a blurb & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... Alt2, per Modest. – Sca (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb posted because consensus so far is unanimous; feel free to pull if that changes.  Sandstein   21:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article should also expand on how his death might affect ISIS, otherwise looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ironic how the United States indirectly created ISIS. Hcoder3104 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Fitch

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. (N.B.: looked at WP:RSP re. reliability of Bleacher Report (ref 2), but it is not dealt with there, so AGF). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since 2011, BR's journalism has been much higher quality (see Bleacher_Report), and especially if it's not breaking sports news that relies on tweets and "sources", I've found it to be reliable (such as for an obituary like this).  Spencer T• C 20:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Already posted almost an hour ago by Stephen. --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Plaine Savo massacre
* Comment Go for it, though I'm not sure it would progress much, per Sca's comment. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Way too sparse. One possible source: Guardian – Sca (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added the proper templates. PenangLion (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being too stubby; to answer the nom's question: it wouldn't be too sparse if you expanded it. Fix that, and we can re-evaluate.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's easily important enough, so if the article is expanded greatly, it should be posted. The difficulty is finding editors who are interested in the DRC. Jim Michael (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Opppose on quality. If/when cleaned up, easily significant enough to post. The Kip (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Opppose on quality, for the stub article. Alex-h (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as said above, too short. -User:Redoct87 (talk) 2/4/22 3:02PM PST — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Monica Vitti

 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will require some work before this can be posted. Not bothering with CN tags. There would be too many. I have orange tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not ready. There are now dozens of {cn} tags across the wikipage. The Career section reads like a prosefied resumé. Filmgraphy section has no references at all. --PFHLai (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Megaflash

 * Comment This is excellent DYK material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DYK is for new or 5x expanded articles but lightning is a large and established vital article. And DYK has a surfeit of material – it's running 8 new hooks every 12 hours.  Whereas ITN is stale, taking an average of over two days to get out each new blurb, which is over 30 times slower. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This record is really only significant to people interested in meteorology. ITN is focused almost solely on important national/international sports events, awards, and events with impact (deaths of leaders, elections, disasters, etc). The general consensus amongst ITN people is that we don't post met records here as they are either not important enough to the general populous or can be attributed to climate change. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and comparing this to the tornado outbreak which left dozens dead is rather insulting to the people affected by it. These records are trivialities, have only been recorded since the last few years (so basically the largest lightning since, what, 2010 or so?), and have no actual importance. Fram (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be nice to have a meteorological story that is not a disaster/death story. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An incremental increase to an obscure record. The previous holder was 709 ± 8 in 2018; it's unclear what (if anything) we learn from extending that to 768 ± 8 km in 2020 (but only certified yesterday). The inability to write even a brief article on this particular event or even the broader record of longest lightning bolt is symptomatic of this factoid very little impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obscure trivia. What's next, a main page blurb for a slight increase in the hamburger speed eating world record?  Sandstein   12:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that'd get my click. WaltCip- (talk)  12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WaltCip should check out lettuce club, which grabbed my attention at DYK recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose From the article, and I quote, "According to the United Nations' WMO, on April 29, 2020, a bolt 768 km (477.2 mi) long was observed in the southern U.S." We're a few days late, I'm afraid.  Over 600, actually.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's unfair and not how science works. Yes the event happened in 2020, but the researchers had to analyse the data, write up the paper, and go through peer review plus verification of the record by the WMO. The result was only published on 1 Feb 2022 (in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society), and announced in a press release on the same day, so is definitely not stale. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, then why doesn't the article say that? If someone were reading the article, looking for a recent event about lightning, it should have a recent date, not one from 2 years ago.  So now, my reason is "Oppose... article does not contain the correct date for the recent event".  If the event is the publication of the research, then that date should be evident in the article.  Fix it if you want it posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the article update is not sufficient, just half a sentence. I don't want it posted - I !voted oppose above. I was disagreeing with your reasoning, not the !vote. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per all the other opposes. Talk about a flash-in-the-pan event. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Update from AP: The lightning bolt is still gone. WaltCip- (talk)  13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose as Ghost Riders in the Sky.  SN54129  14:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Shintaro Ishihara

 * Comment: Shintaro_Ishihara will need a reference or ISBN for each book.  Spencer T• C 21:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the Books section, there are also about 10 {cn} tags that should be addressed before this nom can proceed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Remi De Roo

 * Long enough (800+ words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and formatting looking alright, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Herman

 * Not Quite Ready A couple CN tags. Once remedied should be g2g. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Addressed the two tags and some copyvio, though I haven't checked the entire thing yet. I'm needing to sleep, but I suggest someone comb the rest of the article to make sure there isn't anything still copied-pasted out of sources before posting. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Earwig's seems to be clear of the apparently now former copyvio problem. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état attempt

 * Oppose the coup seems to have failed, so no long lasting effects of it. Thus, not ITN-worthy in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning oppose. At present this seems like a potentially significant event that didn't happen. If it snowballs into something more significant, or details emerge of a major loss of life, I'll be willing to consider. But the facts available now do not indicate an ITN-level event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I created the article and have written everything the article currently holds, I could have nominated it too but just like Joseph says the coup failed and it has no significant long lasting effects. We don’t even know who did it, ”armed men” that the president suggested has no connection with military but gangs, it is currently not ITN worthy unless something more significant comes out of this story. But in terms of geopolitical analysis, it is worrying with all these coups in West Africa. BastianMAT (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Beneath the impactfulness radar.   – Sca (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bud Clark

 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Freedom Convoy 2022
It's the sort of wide-scale unrest event that I would expect to at least be debated at ITN. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please use the appropriate formatting for an ITN blurb nomination(under the "show" tab when you open the edit window); and propose an appropriate blurb, along with news sources to demonstrate it is in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that we already have COVID in ongoing. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was planning to add the ITN template, but not sure whether the request is for a blurb or ongoing. It looks to be an ongoing event (since 10 days ago), so think ongoing would be okay for it. But someone feel free to suggest a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covid-19 is already in ongoing... protests have been happening across the globe and we aren't posting them. This is simply a part of the response to the pandemic and measures taken during it. We don't need to add more covid material to the ongoing section. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 17:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Noah. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Noah. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above and suggest WP:SNOW close. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Tom Brady tweets his retirement

 * Support - I'm aware this nomination thread will become a calamity due to it being a U.S.-centric item and the NFL to boot. But there are few sportsmen who can legitimately place themselves in the ranks of "greatest of all time", no matter what the sport, unlike Tom Brady.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due to Tom Brady's influence as a sportsman, regardless of the nationality of the individual. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Often considered the GOAT of American football, the reason the other one was closed was because it was not official; now, it is. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think this is US-centric in the sense that Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are immediate association with American football even for people who don't watch this sport outside the United States. His status in the sport is roughly comparable to that of Sachin Tendulkar in cricket, so no strong reason against this given that we posted Tendulkar's retirement.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Person of interest to few people, considering the worldwide scope of our project: fans of a particular sport in a particular country.  Sandstein   15:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." There is no global relevance requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the ITN instructions above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." WaltCip- (talk)  15:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason. The topic relates to a niche interest (a particular sport) within a particular country. When we post about individual people, it's people who are important to all of society in their country, such as very prominent political leaders. A Mandela or Thatcher this person is not.  Sandstein   15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is patently untrue in every sense. The NFL might be a niche interest to the world but it is not a niche interest to the USA in terms of popularity, and certainly is not a niche sport. Moreover, you need only look through ITN's dense archives to note that we do not limit ourselves only to political leaders with outsized societal impacts. WaltCip- (talk)  15:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a death blurb. Mandela and Thatcher do not apply here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose respectfully. Conceding that there have been a handful of exceptions (none of which I supported), ITN generally does not do retirements. Nor IMHO should we. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion and am not trying to talk you out of it, but we only don't do things here until we do. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that we've ever considered sporting retirements worthy of ITN (after all, we haven't blurbed the deaths of some very significant sportspeople, let alone their retirements), and whilst I'm aware this is quite important locally (Brady is probably the only current AmFoot player I could name) I'm somewhat unconvinced that it rises to the level of ITN. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose as apparently we blurbed Ferguson and Tendulkar, so there is precedence. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And now unstriking it as there are some really terrible reasons for supporting below. Give an actual reason for blurbing this other that "GOAT WOW" and I might agree with you. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support There's precedence from Ferguson and Tendulkar. Say what you want about "lack of international competition/notability," but for what that's worth, Ferguson only managed a national team for two years and cricket is fairly unknown outside a handful of Commonwealth states. This is on their level, or that of a Gretzky or Jordan retiring. The Kip (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL - I think you'll find that Ferguson's claim to fame was definitely not managing Scotland!! Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Very much understand that; however, one of the prior arguments against Brady was that he's "irrelevant" outside the US because NFL-only. Going by similar logic, Ferguson's "irrelevant" because he spent the vast majority of his career with a single English team. Now, that logic is awful, but others were using it, somehow. The Kip (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some English association football teams compete against other association football teams from other countries, compared to NFL teams that do not play against American football teams from other countries (these teams do exist). Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The English Premiership is shown live all over the world; it's the bigest sporting league in the world, and Ferguson was the most successful manager ever. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is just a tweet. And retirements often don't stick.  Frank Sinatra famously retired in 1971 but then went on to work for decades more – "Ol' Blue Eyes Is Back". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What should he do to announce his retirement? Take out a full page ad in newspapers? How he announces it is immaterial. Retiring from singing is a very different thing than retiring from a sport, which requires certain physical abilities. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * People in sport often go on to work in the same sport as administrators, coaches, commentators, managers, etc. See Ray Illingworth for a recent example. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Managing/coaching/broadcasting are not participation in the physical action on the field, which is difficult to return to especially at an advanced age. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Retirement means no longer working rather than changing position. In any case, see Brett Favre – a similar long-service quarterback who "retired" and then played again. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you should communicate that to the English speaking media of the world, who use the word to refer to stopping the professional playing of a sport. Michael Jordan also famously retired (much earlier in his career), played another sport, and then returned. If Brady comes back(doubtful given everything else he does and his retirement statement) that would likely be newsworthy as well. Favre was younger than Brady is now at the time. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Curious that you want more postings but are opposing this one. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Obviously a huge thing CR-1-AB (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Preceding "huge" post made by a user whose contributions to Wiki total four – all in the last two days. – Sca (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Now that it's official, I can say that this has been newsworthy enough to post, especially with the cricketer and the footy guy having set our precedent on posting noteworthy retirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing specific about this really, but in general we shouldnt post retirements because it really is a sport-centric 'thing' that is made a big deal of. We wouldnt post the retirement (or even consider nominating it) for biographies in other areas. People do their jobs, then they die or retire. The reason its a 'thing' in sports is because its a money-making exercise. "So and so comes out of retirement for huge payday" not being an unfamiliar sight in many sports. (leaving aside singers/bands who announce retirement at the drop of a hat for a similar reason). All that said, I wont have any real feeling if it is posted. Brady is certainly in the news, at the top of his game, possibly (certainly acclaimed as such within his lifetime) the greatest in his field. Its big sports news regardless on the same lines as Tendulkar and Ferguson - the only real difference being the wide-spread coverage of the sport in question - but thats not a criteria for opposition. For the future any similar sports-people would have to reach a standard that is rare in any sport. (I know I am arguing into a support, but I will stick with an oppose.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The existence of a salary cap in the NFL, the fact that Brady is still under contract with Tampa Bay for another year, the fact that Brady's not even the primary breadwinner in his family, and the fact that Tampa will have to pay not only him but several other prominent players on the team to keep the core together at a championship-level..to me, this all makes it extremely, extremely unlikely that Brady will be coming back. 65.24.244.191 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Hakuho's retirement was rejected although he was a far more dominating sportsperson in his centuries-old sport than Brady. And at any point, enough million of $$$ could undo this tweet, unlike in sumo. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That we didn't do X thing so we shouldn't do Y thing is a poor argument, that leaves no opportunity for change in the future. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above and because of what I said days ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as this time it seems actually official he's retired. He's the GOAT by a long way, and the coverage of his retirement is not just in the US: (that article also just shows how many records he annihilated in his career). The fact that the NFL is a US-focused sport doesn't deter from the fact that this is a significant moment. And ITN should really do more than just post elections and disasters.  <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Somewhat hesitant oppose. This is borderline, for me, but I believe we ought to have a very high bar for sporting retirements, and like it or not the reach of American football isn't comparable to that of association football, or even cricket. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I support posting, but sumo has far less reach and yet was posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am positive that the retirement of Hakuhō Shō did not get posted. Chaosquo (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Harumafuji Kōhei. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have opposed that posting for the same reason. Treating all sports as equivalent isn't, in my view, consistent with what ITN ought to be doing. That said, ITN is a strange subunit for an encyclopedia to have at all, so reasonable people may disagree with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a regular retirement though, that was in the wake of a scandal after he assaulted another wrestler.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Joseph2302. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and I say this as a HUGE American Football fan; this is really not the sort of thing we post. Individual retirements shouldn't merit an ITN posting like this; I know I am usually very liberal about what gets posted, but even for me this is a bridge too far.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle I think if the arguable greatest of all time in a reasonably noteworthy sport retires, that would merit a post. I'd be happy posting the retirements of Jordan, Gretzky, and Messi.  Regarding quality, the article is in reasonable condition but there's a couple of paragraphs that could use a quick pass. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this guy's blurb is formally uploaded (which I can't assert my opinions or else I'll get mobbed), this sets a standard where other notable sportsmen in their fields, like Federer, Nadal, Messi, Ronaldo, Axelsen, and many, many other notable athletes of their field has the qualifications and requirements to be listed in a blurb. Notably, Federer, this guy is giving hints on retirement soon, and this guy is far more famous than Tom Brady, while being one of the greatest players in tennis. (PenangLion (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC))
 * We have posted sports retirements before, we posted Sachin Tendulkar and Alex Ferguson. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Precedent is just a synonym for "times we did the wrong thing in the past". There is no standard, no precedent, that we should ever hold ourselves to.  We should adjudge every potential posting on it's own merits, without reference for what may or may not have ever happened before.  If we do the wrong thing one time, it should not bound us to doing the wrong thing forever.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a standard and a precedent. You may not like it or wok to change it, but it's still a precedent. And there very much ARE standards for ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you simply stop taking as a precedent what was published in 2013? The standards have changed so much in nine years. It's simply ridiculous. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support  - There are very few individuals whose retirement is as big of a story as Brady’s, and who have had as big of a career as his, so I think based on that and past precedence of posting two athletes retiring this should be posted. The only other athletes currently I can foresee being posted upon retirement are LeBron James, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams, Messi/Ronaldo, and potentially Sidney Crosby/Alexander Ovechkin, so it’s not like there would be a ton of these posted often if we posted this one. Especially since they will all retire at different time periods so there will not be an influx of retirement blurbs at once. Andise1 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NFL GOAT, on par with other sporting retirements that have been posted. Career section is thoroughly fleshed out.  Spencer T• C 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support To heck if American football isn't as possible as soccer of something. Football isn't just some niche sport and Brady isn't just a "very good" player. Easily the top of his field in a sport that is the biggest in one of the most populous countries in the world. Clearly reported in other countries as already indicated. To me, the sport being more popular shouldn't be the benchmark that most make it out to be - Brady's clearly known outside of the realm of American sports and football fandom. I acknowledge that some people don't like sports stories in general, but it's worth noting we have plenty in ITN/R, and I daresay this is bigger news in the sports world than most championships. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL you guys must be ashamed of yourselves. The German ITN beat you to the punch. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, there already is a predecent from before, very famous guy with RS posting it too, and overall a nomination that is relevant. BastianMAT (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now that it's official. GOAT.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per DarkSide830. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I  would be supporting in principle but the update to the article appears to be one line and we normally expect more than that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose from before. In a sport that does not have international competition, the retirement of a player is a non-event in contrast to the retirement of cricket or assc. football players that have played at international events. And even at the international level there are only exceptional people we would consider. --M asem (t) 18:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "international competition" or international relevance requirement. We don't only post sporting events between nations. We get so much criticism for not posting enough, why turn this away? 331dot (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Super-Duper Strong Mega Support - This is one of the few sports retirements we should post. "International competition" is a red herring. He is the best of all time by a wide margin in a major sport. If your best argument is "but it's not cricket or soccer", well, there you go. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, the article does not meet the updated content criteria. It has exactly one sentence about this, and I believe the criteria requires more coverage than that. And, even if that is addressed, I share Masem's and Vanamonde's concerns here. I also philosophically echo Jayron32's bridge too far sentiment. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – even as a huge American football fan, this does not rise to the level of notability required for ITN. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the "level of notability required for ITN"? This is being reported on around the world, including in France and China where American football is little played. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please fix sources / citations: While this conversation is going on -- please can folks knowledgeable of this topic, fix the citations in the article. A few paragraphs require citations. The sections NFL career records, NFL career statistics, awards and honors require sources / citations. That way, the article will be ready for posting if this discussion results in a post. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Also noting a bit of a WP:PROSELINE problem in some sections. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Orientem, Jayron, Masem. Lacks impactful significance. – Sca (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, one of the few retirements that is worthy of ITN in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my support and changed to oppose. Starting to realize just how ridiculous it is that this is being advocated for.--WaltCip- (talk)  21:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support -- for the same reason I'd support blurbing Gretzky, even though Hockey has little global reach at all. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to diminish Brady's argument, but for what it's worth, hockey's pretty big in Europe (Russia, Sweden, Germany, and Finland especially). The Kip (talk)


 * Neither our article nor most of the references I've checked claimed that Brady is the greatest American football player of all time, as claimed again and again and again above - the greatest quarterback, yes, but that's a narrower field.More to the point, I'm only seeing - generously - a one-and-a-half sentences of relevant update to our article, which is far short of In the news. —Cryptic 22:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not fair to compare quarterback to other positions because of how the game works. Almost every play starts with 1 to many seconds of everyone being still on opposite sides of a ball they cannot cross (except one dude on each side is allowed to move without crossing, and one dude of one side is allowed to cross without moving (but only enough to grasp the ball)) This dude then jerks the ball to the quarterback who then HAS to make the identity of the dude who tries to advance the ball unpredictable or the defense would have a huge advantage. Some high school teams discovered a rule loophole where the number of guys the quarterback was allowed to give the ball to approximately doubled to the whole team and just that worked so well that it was quickly made illegal. So no matter how good the guy he gives the ball to is the quarterback is responsible for more yards (of ball advancement towards the goal). As for the ones the quarterback can't give the ball to, the fatties usually stalemate long enough that they don't have much effect, the central fatty doesn't have to be that skilled at ball jerking (if he isn't good at aiming the ball far well he could just have his quarterback hover his hands so close to his privates that he almost touches them (quarterback's allowed to hover his hands between the ball jerker's legs as far forward as he can without touching the jerker or ball before the jerk)). The other defenders only cover part of the field, unlike the quarterback who is involved in two ball givings in every offensive play, or one ball giving then trying to advance the ball himself, he is the most important and popular guy on the team. Punting and field goal kicking only happen because the offense has failed, and a kicking off guy or kickoff return guy rarely helps the team as much as the quarterback. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support One of the biggest stars out there. I am not American and I think he deserves it. We'd have posted Nadal or Pele, so why not him?5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I suggest we post this before the convo spirals further down The voting tally is 27 to 22 in favour of posting. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Like all other debates on WP, we do not use polling or vote counts to make a decision. --M asem (t) 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying "let's post this before more people oppose?" Because that's what it reads like. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a narrow field, he is not much more dominant than the other leading players. List of National Football League career passing completions leaders and List of National Football League career passing touchdowns leaders show him to be about 10% more prolific in terms of accumulation than the next person, who is from the same period. I didn't look at the team wins-type criteria as that depends heavily on having a stronger team. Also I would disagree with Ferguson being posted as he won 2 Champions Leagues, not really standing out compared to others. People that are superdominant or dominant in a very widespread sport such as Michael Phelps, Messi, Federer, Nadal might be blurbed. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's simply overanalyzing the issue. Being 10% more than literally everyone else in the sport is darn impressive, and I don't think the notability of Brady is much impacted by whether or not he had good teams around him (and a lot of people also think his receivers for most of his Patriots tenure weren't that incredible). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting, more importantly than his stats; he has seven Super Bowl victories as a player. That's more than every franchise in the league, and two more than the next-most-decorated player (Charles Haley). The Kip (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Eight hours later, a mere 3,300 words. Is that the best we can do today? – Sca (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – What's official about a Tweet? HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an Instagram post actually. And it's official because it was posted by Tom Brady I guess? Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominator claimed it was a Tweet, and that made it official. I cannot see how ANY retirement like this can EVER be official. And what's to stop him changing his mind? Will we put that in ITN too? HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the retirements of sportspeople. If Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic & Rafael Nadal all retired in the same month, would we post all of them? Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Brady is one person, not three. And I can certainly say we'd post at least one. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What if we did? What is wrong with that, if the topics are in the news? 331dot (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support obviously we posted Alex Ferguson and we posted Sachin Tendulkar so the usual hysteria of "We would never post this if it weren't in the United States" is debunked. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The retirement of a sportsperson or coach in a domestic sport competition is not sufficiently significant to post at ITN. The Ferguson and Tendulkar examples are from 9 years ago, and are no longer a useful precedent. Furthermore, I don't believe either of them should have been posted anyway. Chrisclear (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not very notable outside of the US. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Le Monde and the South China Morning Post would disagree with you. There is no international relevance/knowledge requirement for any posting.  If there were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but have you looked at their main pages? You can find this piece of news alright - buried deep in their sports pages. E.g. right now the top news on SCMP is Winter Olympics: what is curling? How ‘chess on ice’ works, where it came from, and why there’s so much sweeping. See also, e.g., . Banedon (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do everyone a favor next time and directly quote that on myself the next time I oppose such a nomination. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose One of the fundemental reasons for why we shouldn't post sports retirements is because they are frequently reversed. Rob Gronkowski announced his retirement in March of 2019. He currently plays for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, coincidentally the same team that Tom Brady plays for. The only way to know whether a retirement will stick is to wait, and by that point it's hardly "In the news". —Alpaca the Wizard (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gronkowski was 30ish when he initially retired, though. Brady is 44; I'd say it's highly unlikely he un-retires. The Kip (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An entirely fair point. However, wouldn't this would just bog us down into the weeds of determining which retirements are likely or unlikely to be reversed? I don't think anyone can make that determination without clear-cut guidelines. Therefore: where do we draw the line? —Alpaca the Wizard (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He can't play again till next season starts in September when he's 45.10 years old. He looks old, like a dad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not making myself clear. I am not saying that Tom Brady will reverse his retirement. On the contrary, I believe his career is likely over. The point I am trying to make is this: Tom Brady can reverse his retirement, if he so chooses to do so. Unlike some other fields, sports retirements can be reversed. The Gronk comparison was not a direct 1:1 comparison, but simply an example (from American gridiron football) of a prominent player who reversed their retirement. Sportspeople coming out of retirement is so common, in fact, that we have a entire list of people who have. —Alpaca the Wizard (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Chrisclear, sportspeople retiring are domestic events. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly everything is a domestic event in ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose (This is long but I tried to explain fully.) There are some sports retirements I would consider posting, but those would have to be the top of their game worldwide. For that, a sport needs to be worldwide - tennis, golf, football, various rugbies, chess... This oppose does not preclude my support of posting a new GOAT achievement in a less-than-global sport, e.g. the sumo grandmasters, but those feel more like winning the Super Bowl than really a person blurb. I will also make a possibly controversial point: this is American news. And no, I am not saying it happened in America, no "do not oppose because it relates to one country" needed; things can relate to one country but still be cared about in the rest of the world. There will be non-American gridiron fans who care, yes, but (for an anecdotal example) there has been no news about Brady on the BBC, which devoted entire segments to Wordle being purchased. It is not news, it is American news. And this is where we try to counter some bias: I hope I will not be challenged by saying that British and American news often impacts other countries, whether it is really that interesting to the other countries or not, while rather important news from 'lesser' countries does not get reported globally. So when an American news item does not travel, it really isn't important. Get back to me when a multi-World-Cup-winning captain, Nadal, or similar, retires. A retirement so significant it will disrupt a global sport is the time for a person blurb in these conditions - we are careful with person blurbs for many reasons, including not over-exaggerating the value of one person. Most of the world would not care if you explained the achievements of Tom Brady to them, while they might about Nadal (here assuming the person has not already heard of either) - "has been mostly the MVP among a couple dozen teams in one country" does not swoon one. Kingsif (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This just sounds like anti-american bias to me. I see no difference between Brady and a soccer player I've never heard of retiring. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Probably perhaps the only NFL player retirement that would be posted in this decade. Meets precedent set by Sachin Tendulkar. International competition is not a requirement for posting sportspeople blurbs, especially when the sport in question is highly popular in major English speaking countries (i.e. USA, Canada). Even if Brady were to unretire, which is unlikely given his age, it shouldn't be an argument against posting because it is speculative and in the future, and doesn't take away from the present story. Furthermore, given contract timelines, any hypothetical second retirement would not be up for discussion for posting over a year from now. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-closing comment -- I'm not sure I agree with the closer that consensus is unlikely to form here. By all indications, consensus is (lightly) in favor. But alas; I'll let someone with more experience than me reopen this if they would like. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was writing this in response to the last !vote before/while the discussion was being closed, so figured to add it here. Comment Can I question Brady being equivalent to Tendulkar? I do not think Tendulkar would have been posted if he was only the greatest batsman in Indian cricket history, even with cricket as a national sport - instead, he was posted because he is to many considered the greatest in the world. Every country has someone who is the best in the country at their national sport, which is what you could say Brady's career comes down to (no pro leagues in other countries) . So there will currently be around 200 Bradys out there, all considered less important than one of the others depending on which country you are in. And then someone else becomes the best in the country - will we post when Aaron Rogers retires based on a precedent of Brady if this goes through? Will we push through Harry Kane because football is English? As a different line of thought, would we be suggesting posting Brady if Dan Marino had retired during the Wikipedia era - either leaving a precedent to not post or having been posted as the GOAT so we couldn't claim the same of Brady without effectively advocating for retirements to be ITNR? Kingsif (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the basis of your decision, please? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply, I don't see that a consensus can form here. Both sides make some convincing arguments and the discussion is running in circles. --Tone 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-closing comment, Just wondering, how were the consesus threads on the other two retirement articles? Was there a big difference in those two compared to this one? BastianMAT (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Wordle

 * Oppose Perfect for DYK - which is why it ran as a DYK just a few days ago.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've never even heard of this game CR-1-AB (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I dare say most of our readers have never heard of most of the people who appear at RD, or indeed many of the articles that appear at DYK, so this isn't a valid argument. Having said that, I'm unconvinced that it rises to the level of an ITN nomination. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I've never heard of this either(though that is irrelevant); but this doesn't seem to be a revolutionary business transaction. The Times wants it to increase subscribers. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This must be a bad joke. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't even come close to .1% of being a globally impactful gaming business transaction in a world where Microsoft is acquiring Activision Blizzard and Sony is acquiring Bungie. Just speaking in terms of The New York Times Company, them buying The Athletic is much more impactful, even though I doubt it rises to ITN had it been nominated. rawmustard (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest SNOW closure. Just because a game shows up a lot on Twitter doesn't mean it's big business. Nor should we post a story just because someone interviewed Jimmy Wales about it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support – This is worth running simply because the guy who invented Wordle is named Wardle. Okay, I'm just Joshing. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great article. Glad you Reddit. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * NOMIN → CLOSE, alas. Even though NYT means soon we'll get PLAIN → PLUGS and SHARE → COSTS. p.s. the Welsh version of the app is named Cyrdle. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm over the hurdle
 * And into Wordle
 * Though my progress there mimics
 * That of a turtle.
 * – Sca (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)