Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2023

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

RD: Pelayo Novo

 * Support conditionally - Article seems holistic and well cited for the most part, however, there's a significant concern regarding the claim that he attempted suicide in 2018, which has been contested.  Crusader 1096  (message) 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding "dubious" tag and related talk page discussion needs to be resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Thessaly train collision

 * Support when expanded -- right now it's too much of a stub. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support per Rockstone. Needs expansion but this kind of really serious transportation accident in Europe is exceedingly uncommon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Death toll has risen from 29 to 32 so I've updated the blurb accordingly. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional support per Rockstone. Unusual incident with notable death toll. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, it is well-sourced, though I think it could use some more expansion and as updates come in and the death toll rises, I think those could be added in as well throughout the night! Tails   Wx  05:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - expanded, I've seen articles linked on the main page that were shorter.  Crusader 1096  (message) 06:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support article is long enough and there are no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough, has been expanded well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per all above.  The ⬡  Bestagon  08:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article has many references and contains all critical information. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work and watching I noticed an incoherent sentence and pitched in to fix it. To do that, I had to view the source which was an Al Jazeera video on YouTube.  In this, the on-site stringer gave some technical details that he had got from an unnamed union official.  The information seemed plausible and well-presented but could be a tendentious rumour.  So, it's what you'd expect from a breaking news story but the haste with which we have posted this seems quite a contrast to the Ohio derailment. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This crash is significantly more notable than the one in Ohio, because this one killed over 40 people. The Ohio derailment caused major contamination & killed animals, but didn't kill any people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Environmental disasters and long term risks to local residents near the Ohio derailment are as serious as simple death toll numbers. Not that this Greece derailment should not have been posted, but the reasons to post both derailment are for very different but serious reasons (there have been three smaller, and far less dangerous derailment in the YS in the last month, but none has any death toll now created an immediate environmental hazards, so properly those went posted.) M asem  (t) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ohio derailment initially received less media attention than this derailment, which was why it was a strange case for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above -- Editor 5426387 (Talk) 09:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is the top ITN article right now, it seems like a photo from the article should be used. I’d suggest using 1 of these photos: Paleofarsalos train station 02.jpg J26 761 Bf Thessaloníki, Bmz.jpg
 * Comment Unfortunately, the dead are now 57, please update it --Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricou Browning

 * Picture The picture is really outstanding and worth using, please, as I suppose that few will recognise the subject's name. Note that the current picture of the Brazilian landslide has been up for over a week now and so is very stale.  That picture is also quite confusing now that the blurb is buried in the middle and we're leading with a different disaster.  Readers may think that it's a picture of the train crash.
 * Note also that the filmography is fully cited for once.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew please... _-_Alsor (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please stop doing this. You have been told, multiple times by multiple people that your behaviour is disruptive. If you don't voluntarily stop it you will find yourself topic banned - consider this a final warning. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the biggest fan of @Andrew Davidson photo RD fetish, but to threaten a topic ban just because a handful of all the participants in ITN/C (you, @The Kip, @Alsoriano97), is foolish as hell. I don't like the idea of photo RDs, but can we please stop overreacting over something that hasn't even been definitively defined in the ITN guidlines? Kip's attempt to characterize Andrew's post as condescending is basically the 2023 iteration of the time in 2017 when a photo RD was published and was taken down because a minority of two users complained with such brilliant arguments as This discussion is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, I think you've gone crazy, you guys appear to have been out of control, and I found three or four people who appeared to be going rogue. Chill.  Crusader 1096  (message) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have time at the moment to dig up further examples, but this goes far deeper than just photo RDs; Andrew has consistently been a disruptive presence at ITN for quite a while now due to a significant history of generally complaining about the way ITN is run, yet never attempting to gather consensus for change. The Kip (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crusader1096 a topic ban for just the last few posts about photo RDs would indeed be grossly disproportionate, but Andrew has been disrupting ITN and talk for literally years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew with a disruptive and condescending edit? Imagine my shock. The Kip (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support (without picture, because picture RDs are not and should not be a thing). Reasonably comprehensive and fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support without photo, article is good to go and filmography is actually fully sourced. The Kip (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is good enough to appear as an RD. I’m more flexible on a photo RD, but happy either way. -SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted without photo. Per WP:ITNPICT: 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. No consensus that WP:IAR applies here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Something (or someone) should replace that landslide pic soon, though, it's been about a week. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irving Wardle

 * Support Looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree this is good enough for RD, although I'd like some indication of the significance of the award given it's a red link. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Erythritol use linked to blood clotting, stroke, heart attack and death

 * Oppose I am 99% sure that at least once a week, if not more frequent, there is news of a consumer-available product that reports on its bad effects. This is but just one of them. Tell us when dihydrogen monoxide is determined to be fatally toxic and that might be something. --M asem (t) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * New Study finds sustained oxygen breathing for 90 years on average correlates to death PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is not ITN-worthy, for that this is not news, also, some report comes out like this basically every week. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting, sure, but not significant or unique enough for ITN. Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not seeing the level or depth of coverage that indicates this is a major news story. -- Jayron 32 13:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting, but not a major news story. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Good faith nom, but oppose per @Masem PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Consumption of erythritol, a widely used zero-calorie sweetener, causes hyper activation of blood platelets, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes.--⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tbf, there's no way to properly condense all of this information into a short blurb. If you did answer all these questions, people would vote oppose for being too convoluted lol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. There's simply no way to convey a news story like this coherently in any sort of blurb. The blurb as it currently stands is farcically general. Any blurb that conveys the matter more precisely would be hopelessly bulky. There's really nothing doing with a health-scare story like this.--⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maon Kurosaki

 * Support Looks good, it's up to date, and it's a GA. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fleshed out and well sourced to me. Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albie Pearson

 * Support I don't see any problems with the article. It's up to date, it has everything referenced, and it's a GA. Enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li Yining

 * Support I'm liking that he "took a harsh view of what he called "hard nuts" that impeded China's reform: vested interests and systemic inertia." But defeating these isn't easy.  How on earth did he manage to implement fully-fledged capitalism when China is still nominally a communist, Marxist state?   "Chinese characteristics" seems to hide much fudging... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to go. The Kip (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is nitpicky, but there should be more refs for "Major publications", however this article is all good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks ok. Alex-h (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) EU / UK trade deal for NI

 * Article is currently a stub, may have copyright violation per current banner. - Indefensible (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The new article was started by an IP editor and has kindly been doing some work to clean-up and develop it.  Perhaps there are more articles out there about this so it seemed sensible to start some discussion while the matter is in the headlines. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We probably should wait until the deal is ratified and going into effect, this nomination is premature in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - In The News, with plenty of coverage. Major deal on the future of two great powers. Unique story as well, to diversify our range. Looks good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not willing to throw my support behind this until the article can be expanded into something more than a stub.--⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article does not pass muster, perhaps a hook to Brexit or similar might be better. Gotitbro (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. I'm undecided on the significance, leaning towards yes but a better article and time for reliable source to examine the details should make it clearer either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait this establishes terms of the deal but it appears as I read it, it still needs the individual govt bodies to approve it. Wait until that clears. --M asem (t) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose on all counts. Like the Croatia joins the euro story, this is, and has always been, a predictable outcome. Beyond that, the UK is certainly not a "great power", and it hasnt been during the entire lifespan of most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An expected outcome does not make a news item insignificant. Neither should an analysis of power politics take away from the fact that this is clearly an important development in the Brexit story. Gotitbro (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We blurbed Brexit, that was the story. Probably blurbed multiple times at that.  nableezy  - 17:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From the United Kingdom article:
 * "In the 21st century, the UK remains a great power and has significant economic, cultural, military, scientific, technological and political influence internationally." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for proving Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This seems apt.  nableezy  - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted Croatia and the Euro. We even posted an election in Monaco and states don't get much smaller than that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Croatia and the Euro shouldnt have been posted, that was silly. All new EU members are required to join the Euro, it was the opposite of news when what was expected to happen happened. Same here.  nableezy  - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's funny how we almost instantly post any change of head of state, or tiny sports events, or any of the such, but when it comes to a major agreement like this which is quite literally In The News, everyone opposes PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No tiny sports events are posted, huge ones are snubbed, and any head of state change is ITN/R.  nableezy  - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Changes in heads of state and sports competitions only get posted when there is consensus that the timing is right (new person takes office, conclusion of the competition) and the article is of sufficient quality. In this case there is a clear consensus the article quality is not yet good enough and no consensus that this is the the right point in the process to post the story (given we don't post the same story twice - we are not a news ticker). Even if there was consensus that this was the best time to post, article quality is the most important consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I'm perfectly honest I was being rather hyperbolic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Can't say I'm an expert on the economic machinations of Europe as a whole, but sorta playing off of Nableezy's comment here I'm not sure what exactly is the takeway here that is all that remarkable. The article doesn't really establish anything of the sort as of right now and is a little too heavy on "reactions", which are worth noting but it's not a good sign if a large chunk of the article is such. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Northern Ireland, albeit part of the UK and thus no longer a member of the EU Customs Union, still enforces the EU Customs Code, so an agreement pertaining to the application of foreign legislation on part of a county's territory is very significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment for want of more obvious immediate significance. The deal has been proposed, but the DUP has yet to decide whether to support it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose solely due to the fact that it ain't in stone yet.  Crusader 1096  (message) 01:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait I would support this, but the new framework needs to be ratified first. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - this deal has been several years in the making, and resolves major international tensions. It would be newsworthy whether or not it was ratified by the respective parliaments. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Our article merely says that the agreement is "proposed," and though it lists that all parties seem to be feeling good about it, our article doesn't have clear language at all about whether relevant politicians have signed off on it or whether it will be ratified. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, Oppose on quality and timing. Let's take the time prior to passage to flesh out the contents of the agreement.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on Merit, Oppose on quality an event like this would be important, because this is a deal that resolved many tension between the U.K and the E.U, but the quality of the article is poor, and this is not yet official yet, so also Wait. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait News coverage is showing that this is a significant enough story to expect it on ITN, but I agree that the ratification of the agreement is the best time to post. It will also give the article more time to develop.  -- Jayron 32 13:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Significant for Brexit, the kinks of the agreement finally being worked out, but probably should be ratified before going on ITN, as said by many before. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. This is essentially undoing the effects of Brexit on trade with Northern Ireland. There's plenty of media coverage, in multiple nations. The article is quite bare bones - it meets our minimum requirements but I would like to see more on the background and content of the agreement. It also doesn't mention the other issues that have been held up by this, such as membership of Horizon Europe. I'm happy with either posting now or waiting until it has been approved by parliament - it's seems highly unlikely to be rejected, given that both Tory and Labour parties will be whipping to support it (Stormont has suspended itself, so doesn't get a say). But perhaps that time could be spent on improving the article. Modest Genius talk 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Re-Add the Mahsa Amini protests to the ongoing section

 * Oppose. There hasn't been updates since the first days of February. Even though it is ongoing, there has not been signficant updates to the protests for the past few days, or weeks. Tails   Wx  16:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There has only been one prominent protest in the last 40 days. If a 'second wave' of protest happens, we can consider putting this back up, but right now it appears the movement has been mostly surpressed by Iran. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Giving a quick read through the article, it's still not good enough to go on. At the moment, the last update on new events relating to the protests came in late January, and the month of February is mentioned only once in the article, right at the beginning, with no updates on what has happened in February. It was originally taken off because of a lack of recent updates, and that's still something that affects the article right now, sadly. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No recent substantial updates to the article. The Kip (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Tail Wx. Koltinn   (talk)  20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not enough updates for reinstatement in ongoing. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor 5426387 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Last substantive update to the article is dated to December, 2022. Updates should be more-or-less continuous to qualify as an ongoing link.  If you would like to see this posted, first add information to the article so it has continuous updates, then nominate it.  -- Jayron 32 14:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Boothroyd

 * Support seems like a proper RD candidate, basically, per below. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support  Can't see any super obvious reason to say something against it. Seems like a some easy RD candidate, hopefully. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. But also note that "Honorary Degrees" section may require some refs/expansion before posting this to RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag after adding a source with her official bio that refers simply to "at least eight honorary degrees" (rather than listing them out). Think that's enough. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that, being such an important figure and treated as "legendary" even by journalists outside the UK, it would be interesting if it can be explained something more about her career both as an MP and as a Speaker. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Picture Seems pleasantly free of the axe-grinding which spoils Bernard Ingham, as noted below. And, as there's a good official portrait, we should please use it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with using the picture . I was going to suggest a full blurb but wasn't sure what impact she had on the rest of the world so went for the safe RD. But the picture would be fantastic if we can use it.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 13:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew, stop adding pictures in every RD nomination. She is still a very local political woman in which the international impact is insufficient (natural of the position of any Speaker of any country). You have to make a comparison exercise with the blurbs that have been posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There's been a trend recently of snubbing successful women by not running their pictures -- Jacinda Ardern, Nicola Sturgeon, Raquel Welch. That's not a good look when the pictures that we are running are so stale.  The current ITN picture (right) has been up for days now and its topic is no longer the top blurb.  It's time for a change.  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your insinuations that other people are misogynistic because they don't follow your orders are inappropriate, and your daily and continuous drumbeat of casting aspersions against all people who do not think identically to you is growing wearisome to the point of being disruptive to the proper running of this board. This kind of poisoning the well needs to stop.  Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they are bigots, as you seem to be implying here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose Blurb. Per Alsor. As for Andrew's comment on 'snubbing successful women', in case of Jacinda and Nicola, both were resigning. As far as I can remember, we didn't run a blurb when BoJo stepped down, but we did run one when Truss took office. A PM (or lower post in Sturgeon's case) resigning is news, but not ITN worthy, successor taking office is (for PM, not a lower post). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Oppose picture and blurb. Article quality is good enough for RD but she wasn't transformative enough for a blurb. For reasons repeatedly explained to Andrew, photo RDs are not and should not be a thing (and gender is irrelevant to all of this). Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Definitely up there, pioneering woman in the political field of the UK. (I'll never forget the time she kicked William Ulsterman out of the Commons for his getting haughty over cheddar cheese and pineapple on a stick being unavailable.)--SinoDevonian (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Not opposed to images for RD entirely, but I think the precedent has moved away from that (can someone please remind me the last time it happened). I would not have been opposed to a blurb either, but we haven't blurbed speakers and moving away from that opens a new floodgate that should be best avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gotitbro A photo RD has happened a couple of times, but always boldly and usually (if not always) removed fairly quickly. Discussions on the talk page about photos with RD have never reached a favourable consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD. -- KTC (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New intelligence on COVID-19 cause

 * Reluctant oppose. Several issues with this: 1) as per sources, the report was made with "low confidence 2) per Guardian, the "updated findings run counter to reports by four other US intelligence agencies that concluded the epidemic started as the result of natural transmission from an infected animal" and "there are a “variety of views” within US intelligence agencies on the issue". 3) it's unclear why Department of Energy handles this rather than, for example, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or other relevant body. Brandmeistertalk  09:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's mostly Parkinson's Law but the DoE includes the Office of Science which does it all including an extensive program of Biological and Environmental Research. It's a bit more puzzling that other agencies, such as the FBI, have a position on this too.  But as the pandemic has caused many millions of deaths and is still counting, it's not surprising that it's still getting lots of attention from lots of people, including the news media. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how this is news worthy. It won't result in any policy change and its not the official position of the US government. I know this story is technically "in the news" but that has never been the criteria here. Aure entuluva (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Ascertaining the exact cause of the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of science, not intelligence, so let's wait until a paper with more details on the transmission gets published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. At this point, the intelligence report merely points out to something that was possible from the beginning with no further details.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Others have made good points, but this is a major development in a gigantic story. If it turns out that COVID-19, a virus that has killed millions, destabilised the fabric of 21st century society, and caused one of the largest economic crises in recent memory, was produced in a lab, that is HUGE news. I know it hasn't been confirmed, but major components of the United States government accusing a foreign adversary of creating this virus is definitely notable, especially with high tensions over Taiwan and the balloons. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Allegations of a "lab leak" and "created in a lab/created by the PRC" are entirely different things, even if this report was 100% accurate and trustworthy, it is most definitely not saying that COVID was "produced in a lab". Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Something with "low confidence" (quote from the article) and which "White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question." seems like the blurb makes this out to be more significant than the actual information seems to do. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposite Jesus Christ, no way. Let's not feed conspiracy theories with documents that are very no definitive. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose "low confidence"... this doesn't seem definitive at all. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose I warned the lab leak talk page about this report, which only is saying that the DOE believes the COVID to be from the lab, but this does not represent the full US Gov't stance on it. As such, it should not be considered anywhere close to news. --M asem (t) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no way this is serious, This is Wikipedia, not Conspiracy-pedia, and they aren't even sure of it! they even admitted it theselves - Low Confidence! This is also not ITN-Worthy because it has not been confirmed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This remains an ongoing debate among academics and intelligence agencies. There's no reason to highlight the DoE's report any more than the one from the CIA, WHO or any of the other dozen or so bodies who have reached a variety of conclusions. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose why, just why. The Department of Energy isn't even 100% sure, and it could be false.  TomMasterReal  TALK 14:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The purpose of ITN is to direct readers to quality content, not government propaganda (not even government propaganda, just outright bullshit from a single government agency) spoken in Wiki-voice.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Voicing this as such on ITN might tend us towards undue WP:FRINGE. If there emerges subsequent scientific consensus on the theory that would be the time to post this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we ever got a scientific consensus on the origin of the pandemic?  That would, IMO, be worthy of posting.  Low confidence determinations that differ from other low confidence determinations?  Not so much. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chester Borrows

 * Support Everything is cited, looks good for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. No issues. Looks ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Günther von Lojewski

 * Support. Updated article seems in good shape to post, per WP:ITNQUALITY. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Relatively short but meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 05:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gleb Pavlovsky

 * Oppose. The "Media" section is entirely unsourced and there is also a CN tag in the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Italy migrant boat disaster

 * Support - Still working on the article, although I think it's in good shape to post now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumb question: does the article need the year on it? There's only been one migrant boat disaster this year... (this is not in opposition to a support, just a question). --M asem (t) 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It conveys information on when the incident happened, so there's no harm in keeping it IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:NCE the standard naming format includes the year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be in good shape, well sourced. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Tragedy, but death toll does not automatically warrant notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Article is somewhat short but otherwise good. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Another sad highlight of the migration crisis, death toll is over 50 now, recommend updating the blurb as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Death toll now almost 60, and while migrant deaths is a recurring phenomenon in this part of the world, the scale of this particular event is ITN worthy. Vida0007 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Victor Babiuc

 * Weak support. The Legal career and entry into politics section reads like a poorly-formatted CV, but it is all cited. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lead lists an exact death date, but the body doesn't. This needs to be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: François Engongah Owono

 * Support, good enough for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is ok. Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 73rd Berlin International Film Festival

 * Support: I am creator of the nominated article. The article is comprehensive and written as per WP:MOS. It is fully referenced and wikilinked, wherever available. Rickyurs (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Festival article has been updated and content added. Rickyurs (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is nearly no prose about the festival outside the lede. --M asem (t) 13:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on the film itself looks acceptable, but looking through the archives I see the festival itself is historically a target article, so I agree, that article needs work before this can be posted. Courcelles (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please update the festival article? BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem how is it now? BorgQueen (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am only curious if there was any reaction to the awards or festival itself, but the added prose seems to support posting now. --M asem (t) 14:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Festival article is almost entirely lists and tables. The Kip (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip It has been updated since. How is it now? BorgQueen (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As far I'm aware we only assess the bolded article for quality, so I'm not sure why the festival article being "lists and tables" should hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because normally for awards and festivals, the target article should be the ceremony if the award or festival. If the winning work or actor hthat we normally name us of good quality, we can bold that too, but the award or festival is still key. M asem (t) 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments The festival article has been updated with some more prose. BorgQueen (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Both the bolded articles are now of sufficient quality to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the article about the film, Weak support on the article about the festival; it's still very table heavy, but there's probably enough prose there to be worth highlighting. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems we generally bold the award ceremony page and not the winner. See 2022 Oscars or 2015 Berlin Fest. Added altblurb—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the nomination. BorgQueen (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As there were previous supports, I re-opened the nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's kind of you, but I got the impression that most were simply not interested in this nom. Hope I'm wrong about that. BorgQueen (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it's presumably notable as an ITNR item, it's probably ready to post soon if nobody rebuts that quality has now been met.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me, now. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support altblurb. The festival is ITNR, not the film, so should be the bold link. The festival article is well referenced and comprehensive, but mostly tables. It does meet out minimum requirements though, good enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Pinsent

 * Comment I do agree that the article needs ref improvements due to the numerous citation needed tags. I might as well improve it! Tails   Wx  13:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, all citation needed issues resolved, but I'm unsure if the references are reliable, such as IMDB and YouTube ones. Tails   Wx  14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IMDb and Discogs are listed as unreliable sources on WP:RSP as the content on those websites is user-generated. Vacant0 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready, needs ref improvement as IMDb is not considered reliable per above. - Indefensible (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, I have removed the IMDb and Discogs sources as they are unreliable. Sourcing issues should be fixed! Tails   Wx  22:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Did a spot check, need additional refs to cover some of the titles, especially in the TV section. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , all cn tags resolved! Tails   Wx  04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's getting there, but many of the TV listings still need refs too, I just didn't add cn tags for all of them. - Indefensible (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll let you know when I've sourced all TV listings. Thanks! Tails   Wx  04:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , all sourcing issues have been fixed! However, I don't know if the references are reliable. Feel free to let me know if any other improvements are entailed! Tails   Wx  17:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ref issues have been addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mihai Șora

 * Support It's a stub article but looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually stub articles are never suitable for RD :) But in this case, it's been assessed as Start class which I think is accurate, so I've removed the stub tag. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ali Yafie

 * Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edith Roger

 * Support Appears to be sufficiently holistic for our purposes. Article is also well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Víctor Gómez Bergés

 * Not yet ready Quite short; this reads more like a resume listing offices he's held than an encyclopedia article. Just a few sentences explaining things he may have done in these offices (particularly in parliament and as minister of FA) would be sufficient to making this holistic. The article is also pretty underlinked. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Walter Mirisch

 * Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Several large unsourced portions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Felipe González González

 * Weak Support Article sourcing looks complete. Some more details could be added about his term as governor. Joofjoof (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Abourezk

 * Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated. Better late than never! Fully sourced now and makes a lot more sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks way better! Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bernard Ingham

 * Needs work Lots of work.  I just read the article, comparing it with the BBC and Guardian obituaries.  It seems too recentist, giving undue weight to matters like the petty dispute with the neighbour and the Hillsborough matter while giving no attention to more significant issues in his career like the Falklands War. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Bonk

 * Support Everything seems to be cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Mooonswimmer 18:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A little short, but sufficiently holistic for our purposes and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: John Olver

 * The 2004 Electoral College section saying he voted "not to count" Ohio needs work, especially the WP:SYNTH following that sentence. Unlike January 6, 2021, this was not an attempt to overturn an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed a GA, but from a decade ago. I've added cn tags. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll take a crack at fixing some of the issues later. Olver is one of the more famous people to come from my town. Curbon7 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've gone ahead and cut/commented out the unsourced portions. I also commented out the entire bit about the Ohio electoral count, as I'm not sure it's WP:DUE. I think the rest of the content is fine for holisticity and sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Like the editor who saw Rebecca Blank and thought Rebecca Black died, thought this said John Oliver for a split second 😭 -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 13:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Wamena riot

 * Oppose My personal feelings aside, I don't think riots in Wamena should be blurbed for the ITN as the riots aren't significant in the wider scale of things. If the riots starting to continue further it will be put as an ongoing, but as it stands, it's unlikely. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The most bloodshed in the Papua conflict in years. 10 civilians were killed, including 7 or 8 by their own government. That meets the merit of significance, in my view. Blurb needs work, though. Curbon7 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Curbon7. Long-term significance is not required for posting items to ITN, if we can demonstrate there is adequate short-term significance. I feel this counts as such due to the unusually high numbers of deaths. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, we do have NOTNEWS and NEVENT that says we should not be covering topics that get only bursts of coverage in the news and no clear enduring/long-term coverage. It is not immediately clear if this will have that long tail, or if its part of a larger news topic (I don't see an obvious one here immediately, but discussing this riot in that context rather than a standalone would still make it a possible ITN event.) This idea would readily expand to how we usually treat US gun shootings or routine natural disasters in various parts of the world, for example. However, this is probably a discussion for WT:ITN, not in this blurb. M asem  (t) 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem, I'm just going based off of what our current consensus seems to favor. And my understanding is that natural or man-made disasters that have a sufficient death toll usually get through without a problem, but then you have edge cases like this one where people ask "where's the long-term significance?" Not to be morbid, but if you compared such an event to elections or declarations of war, it's doubtful that a landslide has any claim at long-term significance whether it kills 1, 10, 100, or 500 people, so it's a bit ticky-tack to apply that evidently nebulous standard to one story and to not apply it to another.
 * As far as WP:NOTNEWS goes, I've said before that this applies to the creation of stand-alone articles. If an article doesn't pass that muster, it should be deleted, and the question of nominating the article for ITN would thus be made moot. But until it is deleted, I think it's not a WP:NOTNEWS violation to post those events if it can be determined to be significant in some manner. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MarioJump. I'm not sure if this meets our standard of significance. That said, the article quality is up to par. The Kip (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely meets the hypothetical WP:MINIMUMDEATHS and even aside from that, it is significant as a great escalation in the conflict as shown by Curbon7. I think that the blurb should give some context though. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if we can call it a significant escalation without any longer-term significance. If this escalated into days of riots, sure, but if it’s an isolated incident (as it seems to be now) that doesn’t fit the definition. The Kip (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * support per curbon7, alt over initial nom. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mario. We should wait. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mario Ludicrous (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. The article doesn't even seem to have a good handle on how many people were killed. Looks like a lot of uncertainty. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per @Curbon7  Crusader 1096  (message) 01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Provincial. We don't post US mass shootings as a rule, I don't see why security incidents in a security-incident-ridden region are noteworthy. Motion to invoke WP:SNOW This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, security incidents there are much less common than US mass shootings. Maybe about the same per capita, I suppose. Juxlos (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental difference between a kook shooting up a supermarket and an ethnic riot leading to clashes with government forces. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ... WP:SNOW isn't a "motion" you can "invoke"... ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Curdon. Yes, Papua is a conflict ridden region, but this amount of deaths is unusual. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Parts of me think this might be significant, but this one does not seem directly connected to the armed conflict in the region. As in the article suggest, this was triggered by rumour of a child kidnapping which is widespread this past few weeks within the entire country, and it just so happened that this one triggered a bloody outcome. Nyanardsan (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @MarioJump83. Also, death toll does not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Would have supported it if it was substantially related to the Papua conflict, but riots over child kidnapping are not it. If it evolves into further rioting/protests that would make it considerable but as of now it does not stand. Gotitbro (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas H. Lee (businessman)

 * Support Article appears to be very well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article says "Lee was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound" but the corresponding citation says "The police spokesman did not confirm the man had died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, noting the cause of death would be for a medical examiner to determine." It's not enough to have citations.  You have to accurately follow them. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a shame we don't all work on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or else maybe we'd be able to fix this problem. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I hadn't seen that. Curbon7 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited this, all the source is able to fully justify is that he was found dead, not the cause. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does not say this any more. It did not when I nominated it, and we can semi-protect the article if unconfirmed BLP details are repeatedly reinserted. Please reexamine your vote . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The news sources do not seem to have much detail about this death. As it is somewhat suspicious and controversial, we should wait upon further investigation.  There's no rush as we are not a newspaper. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ... which is why the article shouldn't state a cause of death at this point. But that does not mean the article shouldn't be posted. I don't understand that logic. Nor do I understand why you didn't remove it yourself when you saw it, instead leaving it in the article to comment on it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, didn't you complain that we didn't move fast enough to post something? Why the change in tack now? It reads as though you are complaining for the sake of complaining. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thomas Lee's death ruled a suicide by gunshot. (Not that we needed them to for ITN/RD.) So now that there's no reason to oppose this,, I presume you can strike your "oppose", even if you don't want to answer the question about why you saw a potential BLP violation and did not remove it yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It's pretty well cited per Curbon7. We don't know the full details of his death, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be included in the RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Donald Dillbeck

 * Text RD A name like this draws its own attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The prose is very casual (ex. "Dillbeck's father walked out on him", "shooting a deputy dead", "Dillbeck's court-appointed lawyer conceded his crimes and tried to save him from the electric chair", etc.) in spots. There are also WP:PROSELINE issues. Curbon7 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's plain English and it works best. In this context, anyway. A treatise on parental responsibility, police report or high-priced New York piece might rightly go with "abandoned", "fatally wounding a law enforcement officer with a firearm" or "Old Sparky", but that's never been Wikipedia's style. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to violate WP:PERP. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get that. "if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". There isn't. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Read on. "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:..." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it has a Wikipedia article, so it's inherently notable and appropriate for RD. I'd argue that any person on death row is automatically notable. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are about 28,000 people on death row globally so you have your work cut out for you. Even if you just focus on actual executions and just stick to the USA, the rate seems to be about one a week.  See List of people executed in the United States in 2023.  I'm still not seeing what's special about this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I took another look and realised that this guy was just executed for a murder in 1990 and so he's been on death row for 32 years! The article doesn't explain this remarkable delay though.  See the Mills of God... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't explain it because it's not an unusual delay. In Japan and the United States (the two developed liberal democracies that retain the death penalty), there's usually a significant delay between the crime and punishment, since even people sentenced to die are given strong due process rights. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I don't feel any issues with the article. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support For the name alone. Inexpiable (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral If Andrew wants o test WP:PERP, he should try WP:AFD. However, his concern is valid. 63.44.29.199 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article jumps 32 years from his conviction in 1991 to his execution without any mention of appeals. There's some details here if someone has the time to add them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Motson

 * Support passable for RD. I added a source, put some continuous tenses in the past tense and removed unsourced from the lead. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I've done a quick copyedit of the article, which seems in good enough shape for RD. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I've done a quick copyedit of the article, which seems in good enough shape for RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Jinx! <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  - I've removed a duplicated paragraph and didn't spot any other issues. Marked as Ready. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks good  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Fisher (American football)

 * Support Looks good, everything is cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could this be posted? I made sure every sentence was cited and I was hoping to have it posted by today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. A personal suggestion is to try and limit mid-sentence citations as much as possible, as these can get in the way of readability, but that's no an issue for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Salundik Gohong

 * Support Article is very holistic and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support could use minor CEs for grammar, but otherwise fine. Juxlos (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape. Wanted to create this a while ago but did not have time for it, thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Qurei

 * Support looks good enough. Must be published on main page in RD. Fahads1982 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a lots of sentences that are unreferenced that really ought to be. I added the tags, it could be that it's just a question of using thr existing sources and putting them in the right place, but can't have crucial parts going uncited. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tags addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing issues have been fixed. Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tasuku Tsukada

 * Comment Literary citations should be standardized as Sfn. The lede also needs to be shortened, as it contains a lot of excessive biographical information that should be moved to the body. Curbon7 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 90% of the prose is about one event (1998 Winter Olympics), what else did he do? Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kanak Rele

 * Support Everything seems to be cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Could use some work here and there, but overall the article appears to be sufficient. Article appears to be holistic and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mats Löfving

 * Support. I have just added an update which says Löfving died within hours of the end of an investigation into his conduct and a murder inquiry has been launched. But it seems possible it was a heart attack that killed him. Moonraker (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - good prose, well sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Surprisingly, this is better that the article about him on Swedish WP, where it is also ITN. It might be prudent to add that treating this as a murder investigation is purely standard procedure in any case when a death has occurred at home and the authoroties don't know exactly what happened. No one is seriously thinking he was murdered. The investigation against Löfving has also been dropped now that he's dead. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ellen Inga O. Hætta

 * Comment A little WP:PROSELINEy, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Biography. Is there content that could be added to buff this out (i.e. things she may have done in these posts)? Otherewise, the article is well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A little short, but sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose CV in prose format; article is a list of position and dates but lacks information about what the subject did in those roles.  Spencer T• C 05:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Spencer. I learned less about her than a CV would tell me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Simone Segouin

 * Conditional support Article appears to be well-cited. The brief mention of her post-war career is sufficient for holisticity, as that is not the focus. The condition for my support is that her promotion to LT and awarding of the Croix de Guerre is included twice; I have no opinion on which should be removed, so that is up to someone else's discretion. Irrelevant for RD purposes, but that picture is freaking awesome! Curbon7 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above, rest in peace. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but I don't think people are going to hack it putting up a photo RD when the current image on the ITN template is a landslide. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that at the peak of the Turko-Syrian earthquake, we had folks trying to shuffle stories to keep the earthquake at the top of the ITN section or attempting to remove the section image and replace it with the earthquake image, and how we literally had a story pulled because people were complaining that by including it, it was "crass" and we were disrespecting the victims, you're probably right. Though admittedly the Brazilian carnival landslides are inferior in magnitude to the earthquake.  Crusader 1096  (message) 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above.  Crusader 1096  (message) 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support looks good enough. But please, Stop the bandwagon with proposing photos in every RD nominations. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Curbon7 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo RD, though give the landslide photo whatever seems a fair time to shine first. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've resolved a minor sourcing issue with the article, as well as the duplicate information about her rank and award. Kafoxe (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what WP:POINT is trying to be made, but seriously, can we stop with the parade of attempted photo RDs for comparatively minor figures. The Kip (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is on the Talk Page, and it tries to make clear that a Photo RD is not a gift for some arbitrarily elite class of dead people. Any article with a good photo is eligible for nomination. If you don't want one in this case or the other, just Oppose it like you would have a Text RD, back when those were reserved for the consensual faves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Kip. What's the point of arguing for it here when there is no consensus elsewhere for this Photo RD proposal. Get consensus on the talk page first. Natg 19 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, I already am. Here, I just voted for one, not argued. Sort of arguing with Kip, but only to clarify the point, not sway him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed without prejudice) Cyclone Freddy

 * Oppose animated GIF, otherwise neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not animated GIF? :,) - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 12:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's annoying, like an ad from an unscrupulous website. Unlike most ads, though, it restarts abruptly and conveys information the average reader can't comprehend. We've all seen clouds on a map, sure, but it takes at least an amateur meteorologist to recognize which signify death and/or destruction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually think it looks kinda cool PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait My general statement here from 24 hours still stands, as the system's impacts are only just starting to roll in.Jason Rees (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until impacts become clearer. And, oppose the animated GIF. Tails   Wx  00:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. The Kip (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the impacts in Madagascar (and quite possibly, Mozambique) have been well-reported. As for the image, I suggest that the satellite image of Freddy's landfall in Madagascar should be used instead. Vida0007 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to support. Article looks good (108 references as of this writing and no sourcing issues), and although the damage and death toll is (thankfully) lower than expected, this is a special case. Freddy has broken several records, and is only the fourth cyclone to travel the entire Indian Ocean. Vida0007 (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have more details on the impact. This will likely be a major cyclone and definitely notable. - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 12:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is why you dont nominate before you know the extent of the impact. Four deaths is normal for most storms and thus shouldnt be posted.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with nominating it early,, particularly if landfall is indeed occurring on the date it was nominated for. This is also RandomInfinity17's first contribution to ITN; please don't WP:BITE as it contributes to the notion that ITN/C has a toxic atmosphere. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is the storm isn't done and the most impactful area is likely to be inland Africa during the next few or potentially several days as a result of the rain threat. Decent potential that Madagascar is only a small piece of this rather than the main event. <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 14:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An additional comment... I have honestly been stressed out and pissed off this entire week due to exams, people messing stuff up at my job, and my brakes going out on my car which means yet another expenditure. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Cyclone Gabrielle had caused 5 deaths when it was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There were different circumstances that lead to its posting. It wasn't about deaths but rather the severity of the damage and rarity of such impactful storms in NZ. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Article is looking quite nice! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait – The effects in Madagascar don't appear to be exceptional; however, it remains to be seen what happens in Mozambique tomorrow. As it stands, this event isn't at ITN levels for tropical cyclones. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Despite the large amount of information in the article, the effects on Madagascar don't appear to be clearer.  HurricaneEdgar    04:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until its impacts becomes clearer after its landfall in Mozambique Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - Per all above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Support - freddy made its 2nd landfall and is weakening overland. more info will come out as time goes by but since the storm is dissipating and we keep voting for "wait" then it might be too late to be featured in the news Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing Article is being updated and the storm is still active. It's pretty much been stationary and just dumping rain the past few days which has led to serious flooding across Mozambique and Zimbabwe... Death total is up to 16 and the storm isn't expected to dissipate for a decent while so I feel ongoing would be appropriate. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nadja Tiller

 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Filmography passed a source spot-check. Good work! Curbon7 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. B. Kristiadi

 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Prose is a little funky in spots, but this isn't an issue for our purposes. Good work as usual! Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. this article could also use some wikilinks from other articles if appropriate.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eva Siracká

 * Comment The League Against Cancer section is very short, to the point that it doesn't even offer context of what the League is. There are also some oddities, like the quote in the personal life. I also don't see the point of including a Political positions section in an article about a cancer physician other than padding length. Curbon7 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to be well-cited and is good enough for RD purposes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) São Paulo floods and landslides

 * Support – seems significant, lots of deaths, and article looks good on quality. DecafPotato (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per @DecafPotato, though it could do with some lengthening.  Crusader 1096  (message) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support i believe the article is long enough and comprehensive to post. A map of the areas hit would be nice, but with the current picture, no rush on that. --M asem (t) 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant disaster that should be a ITN blurb for some time. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Record rainfall, significant number of casualties. Article seems fine. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support High significance, article looks pretty good :) I think it is ready. - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 08:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above, article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting, please update the image. --Tone 09:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: John C. Hitt

 * Comment Not a bad looking notable person here, wouldn't be a shame if something should happen to his photo... InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with his photo? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with it. I was trying to suggest a Photo RD, nice and suggestive-like. I learned my lesson, better to be frank. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Photo RD I haven't thoroughly vetted the veracity of the claims here, because I don't care to, but everything seems to have a footnote and the few claims I did check checked out. The photo is of the highest standard reserved for presidents. The license is apparently solid. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose a photo RD. Photos are and should remain reserved for blurbs only for the reasons explained on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about a photo RD; it'd be nice, but it's not like he's particularly famous outside of the Central Florida community. Him being listed under recent deaths will mean a lot. Also, why don't we have "recent births" for people who will be notable in the future? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Purely arcane reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How do we know who's gonna be notable? WP:CRYSTALBALL exists for a reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was joking of course. Alas, the nature of time means that we are only able to write about things that have happened, not things that haven't. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As Thryduulf states, Photo RDs are never going to happen in the current iteration of ITN, so focusing this discussion on that is irrelevant. Curbon7 (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work Some issues:
 * The lead talks of a scandal which caused the subject and his finance team to resign. The body of the article does not detail this at all.  It seems to need explanation as it's quite a technical and debatable matter of misuse of funds.  This is a major BLP issue as many of those involved will still be alive.
 * The article does not say much about the subject's academic career in psychology. What was his thesis, speciality, and publications if any?
 * The article does not provide any details of his death. Did the stress of the scandal play a part?  There are no details.
 * The sources listed in the nomination are not available to view - a common GDPR issue which Brexit doesn't seem to have changed. For example, the Orlando Sentinel says "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in your country..."  US editors presumably won't see the message but it's a practical difficulty for someone in Europe like myself.
 * I noticed a typo - "Unde Hitt's direction". Not a big deal but indicates that proof-reading is needed.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For 3, no cause of death was given. For 4, I'm not sure how to avoid that. I doubt a website like the BBC will carry news of his death. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For 5, that could be called my fault, but it never would have happened if I hadn't tried to proofread. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The lion's share of the article is not cited to independent sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) AMAN-23 naval exercise

 * Oppose cannot see the notability of this if this is the eighth time they have done it. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and SNOW close Seriously? The Kip (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip: Can we not WP:BITE people who begin participating in ITN/C? Many of them may not be aware of our excruciatingly high standards for posting items. We should embrace them as good faith nominations and not scoff or sneer at them. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing in the article or the nomination makes this seem significant, and mainstream media have barely noticed it. It's not even the most-reported naval exercise this week . <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow oppose This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is, as Modest Genius says, not even the most prominent current naval exercise. But to Orbitalbuzzsaw and The Kip, that's not how SNOW falls. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow oppose Not a significant military exercise by far. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New START suspended

 * Oppose because (a) this is not significant enough to be posted, especially that the main topic is covered by ongoing, and (b) the one-sentence update in the article is not sufficient to post. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the last nuclear arms treaty between powers. This is significant. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll take it back when Russia builds up 100,000 nukes and kills everyone. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because the last remaining Nuclear Arms treaty ended, doesn't mean that they are going to build more nukes, so Oppose. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? If Russia nuked Ukraine, you guys would say "but ongoinhghshs" 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to respond to every !vote nor is there a need to be uncivil. We appreciate your nomination, the issue is that there are way too many unknowns and predictions besides just the suspension of the treaty. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't suspension enough? 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment If something important happens, but its background is related to something ongoing, does it matter? 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We did post some developments related to the war. However, the development should be important enough. Which this item is not. Russia suspending the treaty does not mean Ukraine will be nuked, and a New Cold War hasn't started because of this decision. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering this is the last arms control treaty between the world's two largest nuclear powers, I'd dispute the idea that this isn't important enough for the front page. That said, the update needs to be more substantial. The Kip (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is just more propagandist Russian finger waving. Posting this would legitimise this nonsense. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly saber-rattling to think this will lead to anything, but the simple suspension of New START is pretty big news, seeing as it's the last arms-control treaty between the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. The Kip (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready – Only a one-line update. I will note that the "new Cold War" title made me instinctively say "nope" out loud before even seeing the article. I don't think that type of broad-strokes analysis is helpful here. We arguably had 20 years of "not cold war" before New START came into effect. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I agree that the dissolution of the last remaining agreement is an important milestone, the majority of the coverage is just analysis of what this could signal and not necessarily news in itself.Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the update's only a sentence or two at the moment, and the sensationalist nom title doesn't help; however, the suspension of New START is itself blurb-worthy imo. The Kip (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Slow news today it seems. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I changed the title. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk)
 * Theoretically support, but oppose on quality This is a significant development for an important treaty, but the update needs to be expanded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle. Ending the treaty would definitely be a significant step, and while it might be a reaction to the war in Ukraine it isn't directly part of it (so not covered by ongoing). However, it seems that Russia is only suspending inspections and data reporting, not exceeding the limits on the number of nuclear weapons (according to the Guardian report), hence only weak support. However the article needs work - the update is only two sentences and there are several cn tags in the ratification section. If those are addressed, I think this should be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I don't think this meets the bar, and is probably covered by the ongoing war item. But it is important. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No By the time New START was ratified, it was clear Old START hadn't been practically effective in the first place. It's like that Iran deal the US keeps talking up, nothing but paper. Now, as since 1945, arsenals will grow and nuclear war can break out at any moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And no, it's not covered by Ongoing. The Ukraine is not a nuclear superpower. The general consensus is there isn't even one bomb hidden somewhere in there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, that photo is crap, compositionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Husnie Hentihu

 * Conditional support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Some clarification is needed for the 2016 corruption case protest, as it is unclear what this sentence is referring to. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some clarification to the protest. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The lead is short but overall article is fine. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. - Could use links to the article from related articles; outside of Deaths in 2023 and Portal:Indonesia it is more or less an orphan.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, stale) RD: Roger Schank

 * Comment I believe this nomination is stale, as his death was reported well before the NYT obituary, eg. here. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Stale per Pawnkingthree. - Indefensible (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

 * Support per nom. There will be more updates as a result of the newest earthquake. Davey2116 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Shouldn't really have been taken down in the first place: it has been an ongoing, escalating humanitarian crisis with a rising death toll this whole time. But obviously the fresh aftershock provides a renewed hook. More are likely. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It rolled off because other blurbs were posted, that's just simply how it is. There's plenty of crises we don't place in ongoing. The Kip (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb I'd turn the new earthquake into a new blurb, while making reference to the previous earthquakes. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until true impact of aftershock(s) is known. If it didn't do a whole lot more, this isn't much different of a nom than below. The Kip (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait . The issue we face at the moment is the focus of the article. Strictly speaking, the article suggests there was one earthquake. In theory then the most recent earthquake should not direct to this article. If there is a split or the article is renamed to plural to connect this earthquake, using this target would be more appropriate. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I guess to heck with that move discussion. I'm still not sure this is an Ongoing-type item, so I'm switching to supportive of a new blurb for this most recent earthquake or perhaps even the uber-rare bump of the old blurb back into the box with a mention of the latest flare-up (be it an aftershock or not, the ambiguity of which, however, lending to the value of this approach). DarkSide830 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Given how the article is in a renaming/move/split tug-of-war, once the dust on this settles, i think it better to evaluate, at any rate I would see it more appropiate to have a new blurb for the new quake rather than putting this in ongoing.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   20:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - This is a strong aftershock, but apparently there have been 5000 microquakes/aftershocks in the past few weeks since the two main ones. This specific one appears to have a handful of deaths and new injuries involved. --M asem (t) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly isn't over yet considering the large aftershock that just occurred.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above (lol) DecafPotato (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in ongoing per above Schwinnspeed (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, and I'd like to not that this isn't just an aftershock, but two fresh earthquakes as reported by the BBC and The Guardian. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the year should be removed from the title in the piped lik at Ongoing, like we have at the Russian invasion and had on the Peruvian protests. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit academic whether they are new quakes or aftershocks. Large quake like the one two weeks ago invariably destabilize their fault line in the near future. As noted above, there have been literally thousands of aftershocks. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be, but as for now RS are referring to it as a second quake, with this source specifically stating that experts say it isn't an aftershock, although they describe it as being induced by the Feb 6 earthquake. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer a new blurb, support ongoing considering arguments above. I think it would've been better if this item hadn't lapsed from ITN. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 07:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we have a separate article documenting the new quake? It seems that this is an independent event, which has already killed six people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as an ongoing item. BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Add "and aftermath" to the title; the earthquake itself isn't ongoing, it's already happened. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This is a big and very serious disaster whose evacuations and aftershocks are still in the news day by day. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leiji Matsumoto

 * Support Matsumoto is one of the greats of Japanese anime and manga, arguably as influential as Osamu Tezuka. I volunteer to help improve this article to meet ITN's criteria if necessary. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 22:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Several unsourced statements in the prose, and the Space opera section is odd. The List of works section also needs references, although this one shouldn't be difficult. Curbon7 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the people coming from the posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga: welcome to ITN; as the small text at the bottom of the yellow box above states, "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". As this will be featured on the main page, it has to meet the minimum level of quality established by WP:ITNQUALITY, which isn't too rigorous but is very firm. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just went through and sourced everything that was not already sourced. Is it good to go? Link20XX (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep! Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One of the greats, who influenced generations of manga and anime fans Knightoften (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Every sentence in the article is cited, and the prose looks good. Rest in peace, I have seen many of his works... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo RD Shows him at work, that's very descriptive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would've certainly liked this one as a photo RD; it's a good picture of him. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 visit by Joe Biden to Ukraine

 * Thank you for your nomination! It's very refreshing to see new participants at ITN. Our current consensus usually dictates that incremental updates in ongoing events usually will not be posted unless they are uniquely significant. Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already posted as an ongoing item, it is unlikely that this will be posted as an individual blurb. We generally like to see major turning points or developments, and a diplomatic visit by itself would not usually count, until the "results" of them become known. I hope that you continue to contribute to WP:ITN/C.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose would be covered by the ongoing. --M asem (t) 15:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom per above. Covered by ongoing and it is doubtful this article meets the criteria for WP:EVENTS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good faith nomination, though expected. Opposing per Masem. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

 * Oppose although the casualties' counts are updating, it seems like the earthquake is over and isn't currently happening. Oppose nomination for the ongoing section. Tails   Wx  02:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems that rescue efforts are done and over, and all that's left is to try to find and identify those missing. There's relief efforts but those aren't getting lots of dense coverage. -M asem (t) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Earthquake is already over, just because they keep finding more casualties don't mean it's ongoing. basically, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above. The earthquake is over. Rescue ops may continue but that isn't the earthquake itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rolf Wirtén

 * Concern He seems deserving of a Photo RD, but is there a higher-quality image available for the Main Page? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. What's there is fully sourced, but it's very thin - is there anything more we can say about his life? Strong oppose a photo RD, even if we did photo RDs (which we don't, and shouldn't) a junior minister who apparently did nothing remarkable during his tenure and a very brief article is very much not someone who would merit one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If we did Photo RDs, which we all agree haven't started yet, it wouldn't matter if he did anything remarkable. He would just need a free and fairly aesthetic picture. Arguing over aesthetics is subjective enough, but we have hard resolution, vertices and colour density to consider; there's no such objectivity in bickering about remarkability, which is the whole point of the proposal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Article is not holistic, and leaves out a lot of important biographical info, like government positions. The Swedish Wikipedia article could be a vector for expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Red McCombs

 * Support article seems fine; no obvious prose or sourcing issues, at least not to the extent that would hold this up. Duonaut(talk &#124; contribs) 01:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. There is a citation needed tag in the Awards section, and I've marked where an update and a clarification are needed. Not marked is the controversy section, but at the very least the second paragraph needs splitting - being found guilty of tax avoidance by the supreme court should not be combined with his criticism of a football coach (is the latter even notable?). Thryduulf (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I addressed the part that needed clarification by adding a link earlier in the paragraph & split the other paragraph in 2. Others can decide whether or not the 2nd part of the split paragraph is notable enough to include in the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dickie Davies

 * Support Good enough for RD– Ammarpad (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a citation needed tag I've had to add related to his work on cruise ships, and also this article is seriously thin for one of (arguably the) most notable British TV presenter of his generation. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierre Haïk

 * Support Looks good to me. (I can't verify French sources for the claims though) – Ammarpad (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, assuming good faith on the French sources. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks OK. Alex-h (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quite short, but sufficient in holisticity. Article is well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively bare but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards
Comment In memoriam has been added by someone. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – The list looks very nicely put together, with a decent amount of prose coverage of the event. The article on the winning movie itself feels a bit weak, but it's acceptable if not bolded. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Maplestrip that AQotWF is a bit weak but that's not a major issue. Have added an alt blurb & sourced the In Memoriam section XxLuckyCxX (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This. THIS. THIS is how you do an awards article. Grammy fans take note. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time I had supported, I wasn't aware of the PR gobbledygook included in the article. So I have accordingly struck my !vote. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is packed with advertising copy which seems to been planted in large chunks by mysterious IP editors like this and so likely violates numerous policies including WP:NOTPROMOTION; WP:PEACOCK; WP:COI; WP:UPE, &c.  Some sample plugs:
 * "At BritBox International, we showcase and celebrate incredible talent, creativity, and storytelling from the UK..."
 * "The mega-selling memoir was the latest chapter in a series of recent public interventions from the Duke of Sussex..."
 * "those audiences will have the best seats in the house..."
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was already working on cleaning that up when you posted this - should be much better now. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I don't always agree with Andrew, but in this case he's correct. The changes by Kingsif are a step in the right direction, but still some further tidy up needed and I have tagged the section in question. For example "the intention gave audiences an "access all areas" experience, complete with VTs from the red carpet and backstage, alongside talent interviews from past and present winners, nominees and presenters" and "Jane Millichip felt that the major changes would give BBC One viewers "the best seats in the house" and that "[g]oing live for the last awards of the night will raise anticipation, and our back-stage studio will give viewers exclusive insight into the event and the talent taking part". These paragraphs rwaf more like an advert than an encyclopedic coverage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was cutting that exact part out when you added the tag (can now be seen), and invite you to improve or remove anything that you see left over. Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * General comment: some IP added a bunch of press release-y stuff and I'm cleaning it up. It seems, not to whine, but unfair, that the unfortunate additions have led this to be immediately met with !opposes while the issue is clearly in the process of being addressed. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The diff I provided was made on 15 Feb. The nomination was made on 19 Feb.  The comment I made just now was on 20 Feb.  So, there was nothing immediate about this; it has been like this for 5 days. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Immediate to when I started improving it, which seems worse. And while what prompted "unfair" was Amakuru effectively saying they could see it was being fixed but decided not to wait on that before opposing, I do think your specificity was excessive for a style issue that can and was being quickly resolved. I encourage users to reconsider your !votes with the improvements. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to support it seems more or less OK now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Old Story Lives It'll be cleaned up soon enough, ITN/R, weak support.InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – I don't see any outstanding issues. DecafPotato (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it’s been sufficiently cleaned up. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nazmul Huda

 * Support, though I would expand the "early life" section! Tails   Wx  02:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed that early life section - it did nothing other than restate his date of birth. Everything there is sourced, but it's not easy to read - I got lost several times trying to follow who accused him of what when, which things he was charged with, acquitted of, convicted of and who overturned which convictions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Yet Ready Article is well-cited, it is more-or-less holistic, but it is quite frankly written like crap. The article is almost entirely WP:PROSELINE. Everything after the fourth paragraph is borderline nonsensical, as the timeline jumps back and forth constantly. In cases like this, less is more. Curbon7 (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Richard Belzer

 * Needs some ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I updated the early life section, but there's still a lot of work to do.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Missing a lot sourcing-wise. Mooonswimmer 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Also a burb should be posted where we mention this: “He had lots of health issues, and his last words were, ‘Fuck you, motherfucker,'” Scheft said.. Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this, although I doubt it will happen. I Support RD at minimum, nevertheless. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose several tags for citations. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing. In particular the tables are largely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I just addressed most of the citation needed tags and the one that remains can easily be removed for low notability. Connor Behan (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Article seems solid. –DMartin 06:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks ok Alex-h (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd never heard of this guy whereas Dickie Davies was quite famous in the UK but less known elsewhere I suppose. So, RD's reliance upon name recognition is inadequate and so a short description of the subject should always be given.  Anyway, the article is orange-tagged as the filmography is not cited, as usual.  In the meantime, our readership is arriving in large numbers regardless – over half a million so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you know, if you want to change policy, this is not the place to do it. As of This 2016 discussion, the current process is that every recently deceased person with a good enough article may be posted in the Recent Deaths line in the ITN box.  Your objections here are entirely impotent.  You could change this if you want to, just start a new RFC and get enough people to agree with you.  If you want it changed, I would think that you would want to do it correctly.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dun-dun. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Filmography is orange tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Still issues with sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Rugby League World Club Challenge

 * I wonder why this doesn't seem to be ITN/R, given that it occupies a place in the sports meta similar to The Ashes. Anyway, oppose for now since the article is a stub and in rough shape, although no objections from a significance standpoint on my end. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Adjusted the target article. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Ashes has a long history and tradition going back to a period when it required a long sea-voyage to the other side of the world. This event seems to have had a much shorter and more irregular history and so is just an exhibition game. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already post the NRL and Super League (per ITNR, if the articles are adequate); this event is just an exhibition match between the two winners of those leagues. Also, the article is very incomplete. If you're worried that the leagues don't get posted, work on updating their articles next time they come around. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality As the article has basically no content in it at the moment. I am open to considering it on significance, but there needs to be a good argument, as international rugby league is already represented in ITNR with the Rugby League World Cup. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: David G. O'Connell

 * Support - short but sufficient, well referened, the only cn has been fixed Josey Wales Parley 08:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs work, but has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - timely and relevant information. Dhpage (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article at present is a list of positions without much depth (resume in prose format); apparently he was heavily involved in antipoverty initiatives and was involved in peacemaking efforts after the Rodney King riots, for example.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Not holistic, as it does not mention what he did as Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, which led to him being highly regarded in the community. A simple short but in-depth paragraph would do. The second paragraph of the Early life and career also reads like a listicle, but this is less of a concern for me. Curbon7 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Atsu

 * Support, article looks in good enough shape. RIP &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support media coverage is sufficient. Estar8806 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article should already have extensive coverage. Rest in Peace. Oltrepier (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready Think this looks good to post. Not much attention being given to RD noms below so closing this one up with a post could divert attention down there. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests

 * Oppose For some context, see 2020–2021 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu and List of protests in the 21st century. This doesn't seem especially rare; just politics as usual. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I might be a bit biased since I created the article but having 3% of a nation out in the streets seems like it would be quite a big deal. Article is on the slim side though. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The protests have nothing special about them in comparison with other protest movements. So far, all that has happened is that people went to the streets to complain about something they didn't like that the government was doing, which happens in almost every democracy. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do seven consecutive weeks of street demonstrations and strikes happen and the Police Commissioner raise concern over political assassinations "in almost every democracy"? -- M h hossein   talk 05:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The "seven consecutive weeks" are not getting the amount of significant coverage you expect for an item that is covered at Ongoing. As for the "concern" raised, it remains a concern until something materializes, which does not seem likely, and correct me if I'm wrong, we don't post concerns. This might be suitable if the protests persist and get some more coverage, but not now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Would this work better as a blurb then a ongoing event? Not sure if it meets the requirements for a blurb but it sure seems to fit more into that category then an ongoing event.
 * Rabawar (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Bestagon. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality As basically WP:PROSELINE. Neutral on significance, as it is clear the 2018–2022 Israeli political crisis is not yet over, but I'm not sure that this is a particularly distinct case on its own. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Yoshihisa Okumura

 * Weak oppose. He's definitely notable, but probably still needs more sources, since some phrases in the biography don't have one... Oltrepier (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Still several unsourced statements. Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(ATTENTION NEEDED; possibly Ready) RD: Paul Berg

 * Support - I've bumped this up to the 17th, as it seems that is when the death was reported. Also article looks in good shape and nice updates. Marking ready. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks beautiful :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but neutral on Photo RD. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rebecca Blank

 * Support. Upon checking, I did not see any referencing issues or {cn} tags, although I would like to mention there is one {nonspecific} tag in the publications section which has been there since July last year. Vida0007 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vida0007 - tag resolved by Mooonswimmer in . Thank you Mooonswimmer!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good to know! Thank you Mooonswimmer. This looks ready (although like TansoShoshen below, I initially thought it was Rebecca Black who died too). Vida0007 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is this bad I read this as Rebecca Black? I was like "no way did the singer of Friday die". TansoShoshen (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Largely well-sourced. Mooonswimmer 18:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2 CN tags.  Spencer T• C 03:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourced and removed! Tails   Wx  13:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer pinging to let you know they've been fixed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are three uncited claims, now tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I resolved all 3 (cited 2, removed 1 as unrelated to Blank).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Stella Stevens

 * Needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All cn tags addressed and removed, though some paragraphs are unsourced, even when not tagged. Tails   Wx  18:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prose filmographies uncited... Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The filmography is almost entirely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ángela Gurría

 * Support Although using an undesirable structure, it's detailed and fully sourced as far as I can tell. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support no issues. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kyle Jacobs (songwriter)

 * Oppose At the moment, the only info that makes this article meet notability to exist (the list of songs he wrote), is all cited to a promotional source, which isn't satisfactory as the main source in a BLP (which includes RDs). Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moses Elisaf

 * Support Short but satisfactory. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced, although I'd like to see the "Career" section of the article expanded to include things he did during his tenure as mayor of Ioannina. Mooonswimmer 19:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Holistic despite its shortness. Particularly, I like how the article covers what he did as mayor, which is what gets it over the bar for me. I've had similarly short articles be accepted in the past, so I don't see size being an issue here. Curbon7 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Bare but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Mexico–United States border crisis

 * Oppose There have been no edits in over two weeks, and it's not a "crisis" just because Kevin McCarthy says it's a crisis. In fact, the headline "Border crossings drop after new Biden policies" suggests there's indeed no "crisis". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as of now - article contains excessively obsolete information and needs to be updated.  Crusader 1096  (message) 17:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - does not meet the criteria and currently has an update needed banner. - Indefensible (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what is the update or ongoing issue? The lede of the article concludes "with more expected in 2022." The body of the article doesn't go beyond June 2022. The source provided in the nomination indicates that the problem is lessening, not worsening. A good faith nomination, but look for a story to nominate, not a nomination to find a story. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's been a crisis at the border for years. Literally every administration. This fails for the same reason that climate change fails.
 * <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 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose – last update was 15 days ago. 15. There's even an update needed tag in the article. Tails   Wx  17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wasn't ongoing for the past ten years, shouldn't be ongoing now. - Rockin (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose what’s new?? _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most recent information in the article is from June, 2022. At minimum, any article posted as an ongoing link needs to have information relevant to events which are currently happening; June 2022 is not "ongoing" by any reasonable definition.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Malik Mohammad Qayyum

 * Oppose, just because his article has an "additional citations" template at the top of it, plus the article is a bit of a stub. phrogge   'sup?   edits  22:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready Still numerous CN tags. Curbon7 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zaenal Ma'arif

 * Comment: Good depth, AGF on Indonesian language references. Minor things that shouldn't hold this up but recommend setting up a talk page for the article, and it appears to be an orphan right now without Wikilinks from other Wikipedia articles.  Spencer T• C 03:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've linked this into relevant articles. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 06:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. The polygamy bit gave me a good chuckle. Curbon7 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colin Dobson

 * Comment: I've added a reference - 1 more needed. Also, in the "Bristol Rovers" section, what does The "Pirates" and The "Gas" means? There is no mention of it anywhere in the article other than that.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These are both nicknames for Bristol Rovers LBLM9253 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Giorgio Ruffolo

 * Weak support As a fellow Italian, I agree that he was a relevant figure; however, I feel like the "Biography" section needs to be expanded by adding some more information. So, we could use the it.wiki version as a reference. Oltrepier (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Article is well-cited but is far from holistic. Significant prose expansion is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No update since. Curbon7 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim McCarver

 * Needs more than a few citations, but I'm helping. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll tag along as well! Probably needs more sourcing. Tails   Wx  14:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support all cn issues fixed., all unsourced content have been addressed and sourced, should be good to go. Tails   Wx  14:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: 1 more CN tag.  Spencer T• C 04:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! Tails   Wx  13:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(Potentially ready) RD: Tulsidas Balaram

 * It does. Citations needed, also I see some unencyclopedic language where his "popularity knew no bounds". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I've updated substantially. Encyclopedic and verifiability concerns should be largely addressed. The subject definitely warrants a feature in ITN/RD. Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready Every recent death is presumed to be important enough to post. There are still several unsourced statements, and excessive one or two sentence paragraphs. There is still some unencyclopeic language ("he had to face hurdles in every step", "Balaram's performance peaked in extra time"). Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone in and done another scan and cleaned up for referencing and encyclopedic content - there wasn't much but @Curbon7's comments above should be addressed. I am not seeing any major outstanding areas for the purposes of posting but pinging previous commenters @Ktin @Muboshgu
 * Re: the argument that there are many one-two sentence paragraphs, this is par for the course in most sports biographies that go in chronological order. I've attempted to consolidate and/or expand where it makes sense, but don't agree that this should get in the way of us posting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many thanks for the work on this article. Agree that this looks for main page based on your edits. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article could use some copyediting; club career could use some clarification on years he played for teams (infobox stops abruptly at 1955). Among copyediting issues: quotes should not be italicized per WP:QUOTE, capitalization ("Asian games"), ungrammatical phrases ("his visa was denied by Indian Govt.")  Spencer T• C 05:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Catherine McArdle Kelleher

 * Cn tags must be fixed and it has paragraphs that are too long. Perhaps an infobox would also be better... _-_Alsor (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: David Oreck

 * Not yet ready Article appears well-cited (besides one CN tag), but the prose is exceptionally poor. There are many one or two sentence paragraphs, and the whole thing (particularly the Oreck Corporation section) reads very fluffy. Curbon7 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Gualaca bus crash

 * Oppose Article is currently too short to be featured on the main page. It's about 3 lines of text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but its got enough information to be useful. Prefer initial blurb over either altblurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until article is expanded to an acceptable level. Then Weak Support as it should be notable enough due to its death toll and as the bus was carrying immigrants, thus giving parallels to the Chiapas bus crash. CDE34RFV (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically, migrants only become immigrants if they cross their intended border. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose..? The article is extremely short, also the words “at least” is confusing Vriend1917 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Textbook example of a bus plunge which, while certainly tragic, is the long-established polar opposite of a front page story. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. The Kip (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow oppose Bus plunges off a cliff into the WP:SNOW This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose in addition to statements above and the stubbiness of the article, this type of event is where we are failing NOTNEWS. If there was a list of major bus accidents by year, listing it there makes sense, but as a standalone notable event, this does not appear to have the enduring type of coverage expected by NOTNEWS and NEVENT ( not just a burst of coverage) --M asem (t) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Equating a bus plunge story to those which get bursts of coverage isn't quite fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Its comparable to some of the US shootings that have turned out to be simple domestic crime that has little coverage after, and shouldn't be covered either. On the other hand, major transport disasters like airplane crashes have long tail of investigation and safety review that feed back to other topics (like the Boeing MAX planes). Per NOTNEWS if the long tail of an event is not immediately apparent, there's no need to cover it as a standalone article on en.wiki, though contributions to Wikipedia would be accepted. M asem (t) 00:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparable, of course, but far different. A shooting in America is amplified by virtue of its four television networks, three cable channels and two-sides-to-every-story "national debate" approach. A bus plunge trickles down the wire one day and is gone the next. Granted, media in and around Panama City will probably follow up with the investigation, but this is the English Wikipedia, like it or not. Anyhow, we've rarely agreed on anything newsy and I doubt this is the place to start now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about English speakers. If this bus had fallen off Westminster Bridge, I would think it important, and so (even though my ability to learn about it is less) I also think it important in Panama. More broadly, the use of bus plunge as a thought-terminating cliche to encourage us to disregard the death and suffering of the victims of mass transport accidents is counter-productive. In short, 'bus plunges are routine news' is just an opinion, and startlingly biased one at that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you feel encouraged to disregard the death and suffering of the victims of mass transport accidents, that's on you. I said it was certainly tragic, and I meant it. If it's an opinion that bus plunge stories are brief in time and space, it's an opinion held by the majority of English newsdesks for almost a century. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait – I hope you can expand this article to something good this weekend, Bestagon. This definitely feels significant enough to post if we had an impressive article on it! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support if Curbon7's comment below regarding the Darrién Gap is fixed. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if the article can be brought up to scratch. It's a remarkable accident with a high death toll. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Because we aren't a newspaper, I don't think we should be concerned with avoiding posting bus plunges, so I think this is a valid blurb on significance. That said, it cannot be a stub. Curbon7 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the sources we rely on consider it a bus plunge, it can and will be a stub, barring original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence, there's the dichotomy. If its a notable incident, coverage will reflect that, if its not it will not. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still exactly seven first-day stories in the Reference list (though AFP did update the number of dead children on the 17th). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until less stubby Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a non-starter until the stub is expanded. I'll check back after the weekend. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note - Schwinnspeed and I have expanded the article and it is now less stubby. I'll ping the users who opposed on quality for a re-evaluation: Jayron32, CDE34RFV, Vriend1917, The Kip, Maplestrip, GenevieveDEon, Curbon7 and Pawnkingthree. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the article. The article places a lot of emphasis on the Darrien Gap, although the crash happened on the complete other side of the country. The statement "The bus that crashed had already crossed the gap" also appears to be incorrect; the Reuters and Guardian sources appear to state and imply that the busses picked up the migrants at the border after they crossed the gap on foot. Curbon7 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could be further expanded, but for now, it looks good enough for me. Would post it with altBlurb then. CDE34RFV (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been expanded, seems suitably sourced as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to importance & article quality, preferably alt 2. Those onboard were from 9 countries & its very relevant that the bus was intending to travel to the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, the article still needs work, as it only notes 22 Ecuadorians, some Cubans and (at least) one Panamanian. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it very relevant that the bus was bound for the US? -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Spanish article includes a table of victims by nationality & our article should also do so. This appears to have involved &/or intended to involve illegally crossing many international borders, making this far more important than a regular bus crash. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Victims by nationality is fine. It is done when sources are available. But why is the bus being bound for US more relevant? Whether or not it crossed a border, I don't think that matters. Are we making the assumption that a bus crash with ~40 fatalities that happens in a city is less relevant than one that crossed an international border? -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a source for the table in the Spanish article. A transport crash with a high death toll is more notable if on an international route because more countries are involved. Had this crash been on a regular domestic bus route, I wouldn't have created this article & it's likely that no-one else would've. Had it been created by someone else, it's likely it would've been quickly deleted. It wouldn't have received much international media coverage as it wouldn't have been remarkable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as quality has now been improved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. Prefer initial blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article looks improved than it was a week ago, quality good, no sourcing issues. Blurb's preferred than the alt and alt2 ones. Tails   Wx  17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any additional details that can be added? Still has stub tags and is pretty borderline in terms of length IMO.  Spencer T• C 05:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - it is a little on the short side, but at 2205 bytes it's somewhat above the commonly-quoted threshold of 1500 so I've removed those stub tags. There's rough consensus that the essentials are in place, so I've posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Article is still little more than a stub; this shouldn't have been posted without substantial quality updates. The Kip (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raquel Welch

 * Comment The prose is pretty good (and sourced) up until the mid-to-late-1970s. Then the WP:PROSELINE kicks in, as well as too much unsourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo RD If ever to start these, now makes sense. If anyone finds that sexist, blame her environment, not me. I'll suggest we don't use the deerskin bikini pic, rather a more modern 2010 or classic 1979 (I haven't checked Commons, just the article, something better probably exists). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Filmography and discography sections are entirely unreferenced. Curbon7 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Concerns addressed. Article is well-sourced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article has over 100 citations and is graded B-class, which is better than most. Compare Shirley Fulton, for example, which is currently at RD.  That has just 21 citations and is graded C-class.
 * The article is also rated as vital, just like Burt Bacharach, which ITN is also dropping the ball on. ITN needs such famous names more than they need ITN because they get millions of readers regardless of what happens here.
 * Citing the filmography is pointless busywork because, to verify this, one just has to view the work in question and/or check its credits. See WP:NOTBURO and WP:BLUE.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN depends on quality first and its long been established that filmography sections must be sourced. That BLP-interested editors have dropped the ball while this article has been on a vital list for years is not ITN's problem. M asem (t) 13:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You do see that Fulton's article is completely sourced and Welch's has lots of poorly written and unsourced prose? I personally don't care about unsourced filmographies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What I see is that this is the top-read article on Wikipedia for the second day. That's over 2 million readers so far and rising.  So, there have been a lot of eyes on the topic but there were only two citation needed so I took care of them myself .  Several editors have been doing more general development – kudos to  especially. So, the article was vital B-class quality to start with and is only getting better.  What are we waiting for? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * – I had no idea she was that popular! As an aside, that lead image of her does not showcase her essence, and its of very poor quality. Black and white is great, but that photo is grainier than a half-tone. I actually like it more with Radner in it. Thanks for the props. I really needed a boost. Carry on. Cheers!  09:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. That's a good point about the image as ITN should be showing one and it's what the readers will most notice.  I've added the current lead image to the nomination but, if there's a better one, please suggest a link as I'm not sure which one has Radner too.  And discuss... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So 2 million readers found the article without the help of ITN. Thus, there's no rush nor need to call for IAR to post this if the quality is still poor. M asem (t) 15:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's 2.7 million now as, on day 3, the peak is past. ITN might as well not have bothered as her name has just been stuck halfway down the RD ticker where no-one will notice it.  So, once again ITN is a day late and a dollar short.  Once again, it fails to run a picture of a successful woman.  Once again, it just repeats the previous day's picture instead.  Quality ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would really like it if you would stop your complaining which at this point is becoming tendentious and uncivil. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready Even if you ignored the filmography and discography there's still some uncited sentences in there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first 8 paragraphs of yesterday's FA had no inline citations. Today's FA has many paragraphs and sentences without inline citations.  That's because it is not our policy to require an inline citation for every sentence.  Per WP:V, inline citations are only required for controversial statements and quotations.  ITN should not try to be more Catholic than the Pope. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would like ITN to abandon its quality standards to be more in line with other sections of the main page, feel free to nominate that. I personally would oppose and advocate for the others to improve their standards, but I am just one editor and consensus rules.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy for Recent Deaths is actually WP:BLP, which does require inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged...This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. Your FA examples are irrelevant as they are not BLPs. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The easiest way to solve the filmography problem is to have a separate article for it. We did that for the recordings of Jessye Norman, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's sweeping the problem under the rug and is not acceptable. If the list had, say, been there for 3+ years ago, and was unsourced, it wouldn't be a problem, but that list is part of the article to consider here and now for RD. M asem (t) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is any of the list dubious? ... likely to be challenged? For Norman, we added the sources later, but by the time we get a long list of films properly sourced, it may be too late to call her death recent. I see that as the bigger problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a shame that frequently happens with actors like Gilbert Gottfried. But when it comes to BLPs, we can't have, or provide links to, unsourced content on the Main Page. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a problem systematic of Hollywood actors that their filmographies go unsourced, perhaps because early in Wikipedia's years we treated IMDB as reliable. You turn to most musicians, athletes, and writers and find nearly every "work" or "appearance" to be sourced reasonably. And this has been an issue for years (5+), and yet the problem doesn't seem to fix itself. M asem (t) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I might start a new self-project where once a day I go to a randomly selected actor's article and source the darn filmography. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Filmography section is now fully sourced. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Estar8806 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted The late 1970s and on in prose is still a little PROSELINE-ish but not nearly as bad as it was when I commented on it a couple days ago. And the insufficient sourcing has been addressed too. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Team Jorge electoral disinformation exposé

 * Oppose, if nothing else, on Quality. Regardless of significance, the target article is not up to quality standards at current. The article fails to understand the significance of the group and contains way too much "alleged" rather than proven facts. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose wary of investigative reports that can only be corroborated by the report and pointing fingers of blame. I don't think the report is making things up but there is still a fair amount of speculation going on in it. If there is some serious actions that result, such as the arrest if the group. That would be a good reason to post. --M asem (t) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem and DarkSide. The Kip (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, the page is already improving massively considering this is news from today, and I really don't understand how one could be wary of investigative reports? That sounds downright dystopian to me. It is a developing story just like every other news piece that exists, if that were the standard we'd have to cut out 99% of them. Dynamo128 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference between this event and others is the subject matter. No one can dispute that there's cyclone affecting New Zealand or that there was an election in Monaco recently - one can be confirmed by radar and the other by the fact that the election was scheduled. No one is saying that we should assume investigative reports are wrong, just that we can't immediately jump on a news story like this without letting it breathe a bit. Arrests and thereafter convictions are better ITN items - anyone, however, can make an allegation. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a joint investigation by 30 news outlets, many of which are WP:RSP. Pretty reliable/verifiable. Were the Panama Papers not news until people started being arrested? There were a few arrests by Uruguay two weeks later; two more by Germany four years later. Not exactly spectacular, so I'm not sure if arrests are a great benchmark for investigative reports. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems interesting but complicated. For example, consider that 2015 Nigerian general election.  That was posted at ITN in the usual rote ITN/R way.  And even now its article doesn't seem to say anything about Team Jorge.  So was the result rigged or not?  And how do we tell when so many news organisations are organised as a team too?  My impression is that political campaigners and consultants often use  dirty tricks, mudslinging and smear tactics in elections.  Is this case something special or is it being hyped? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose that depends on whether you think Wikipedia, a global information platform, should care about the 'global disinformation machine' ... Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is not caring but clarity. In today's Guardian, there's a similar story about Eliminalia – an outfit that aims to clean up the Internet history of its clients.  That's interesting too but it's a different company.  The common factor here seems to be a coordinated campaign by Forbidden Stories which is yet another operation with a different agenda.  Maybe they are the good guys but I feel we need more details before we rush to judgement and start running these exposées.  How many more are to come?  Is this more suitable for Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson: Ongoing might be more appropriate - that's not a different process right? The investigation was conducted by 30 news outlets worldwide, so it was international news from day one, and has already had significant secondary coverage in the Indian and Kenyan news cycles. They'll be more. France 24 just posted this update. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once improved. Electoral interference is major news, especially considering it’s being going on for a long period and it’s not one election. Being covered by many major outlets. About the finger pointing mentioned by Masem, so was the balloon being ‘suspected of surveillance’ but that was posted. This is news now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.44.10.109 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems to my reading (and please correct me) that a firm is trying to acquire business by impressing a client with broad claims about its prior successes. Absent some proof of corroboration from significant global leaders, it seems like a nothing-burger.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support International investigation into election interference is notable and in the news, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project has been at the forefront of such reports. Pegasus Project investigation, Cambridge Analytica scandal and others also come into mind. Gotitbro (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and it has already been directly tied to Cambridge Analytica abuses in one instance. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Kenyan/Nigerian election was corrupted? Have they ever been legitimate? This doesn't seem important in the context of other hacking or election manipulation, which is almost routine in this day and age. I also feel that posting this would open the door to the biannual cycle of "Russia interferes with US elections." - Floydian τ ¢ 17:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Lots of evidenced news sources reporting on what is a very large story, and a great example of investigative journalism. The ramifications of this story are also potentially pretty major. There are arguably some issues with quality of the article, but it seems like this would be worth posting. Quinby  ( talk ) 22:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Resignation of Nicola Sturgeon

 * Neutral, leaning support - It's clearly not ITN/R, as Scotland is not an independent nation. But it's definitely in the news, and she's a very prominent and long-serving political figure. We haven't done well with the resignations of female leaders recently (New Zealand, Moldova), but that in itself is not a reason to post this, merely to be cautious before jumping to conclusions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if Scotland was an independent nation, it wouldn't have been ITN/R, since the change has not happened yet. Only when the change happens (i.e. a successor is chosen and/or takes office) is the item considered ITN/R.
 * In the Scotland discussion though, it doesn't matter as Scotland isn't independent (yet?) but I will support posting when a successor is chosen, Posting Boris's resignation may have been a mistake, but IMHO it wasn't given the record number of resignations and that stuff, while posting Truss's was a mistake (even though I might've supported). We shouldn't be repeating those mistakes. ~ The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article looks really solid with a lot of detail. However, there's not been a significant update regarding this resignation. I do expect at least one good standalone paragraph on this news for us to post it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All I see so far is a one line addition to the lead, which is obviously insufficient.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, she was the longest serving first minister of Scotland. I also think that 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election should be nominated when a new leader is elected. Sahaib (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This is another example of a leader announcing that they are to resign, without actually doing it. "She has instructed the Scottish National Party to begin the process of electing a new leader and will remain in office until her successor is chosen."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While acknowledging the complex issues around the possible independence on Scotland, it remains for the time being a subnational entity of the United Kingdom with devolved powers, and I don't think we'd generally post stories relating to leadership successions in such entities to ITN. If this, then why not governor changes in US states, or indeed devolved governments around the world? I just don't think this has sufficient longterm impact globally to be included. Note too that we didn't as far as I know post Alex Salmond's resignation in 2014, or the parliament election results when they happened. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, It has gotten more news coverage (and is arguably more notable) than other in the news articles such as 2023 Monegasque general election and 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front. Sahaib (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of which should not have been posted, IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I could see the argument for not posting the POLISARIO Front, but reminder Monaco is a sovereign nation and you have to propose a change at ITNR to have it not posted. The Kip (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added alt-blurb Carter00000 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - very significant event ---  Tbf69   P &bull;&#32;T 14:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While not on ITNR, many if not most of the stories we post are also not on ITNR. Reliable sources are covering this story enough that indicates to me that it is very much in the news, and the article is rock solid.  Checks every box for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Blurb upon actual execution as opposed to announced intent. That way you can include the name of successor. CoatCheck (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC).
 * Comment I agree entirely. Ludicrous (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While this is definitely making news in the UK, Strugeon is the leader of a subnational government. We wouldn't post the resignation of equivalent positions such as governor of Andhra Pradesh (who changed just this week!), governor of Jalisco or Premier of New South Wales, all of which have larger populations than Scotland. There are hundreds of such positions around the world - I don't see a reason give Sturgeon or Scotland preferential treatment. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the UK's subnational government somewhat different in that there technically countries? Apparently, the difference is great enough to warrant people from the UK to be referred to by which subnational country there are from (e.g, the lede of her article calls here Scottish instead of British).  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The nations of the UK don't fall under our ITN/R qualification, but do indeed tend to fall above most other sub-national states. It's an editorial choice; I think generally excluding them from this type of news story is a valid position, though if we have a great article to show for it and the news is relatively significant, it's easy to argue in favor as well. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I am well aware of the complexities of our 'country consisting of four countries' - there are historic and cultural differences between the four nations of the UK. However, when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually depends on whether or not the story is a widespread, well-represented news story or not. We should never judge anything by the arbitrary labels we give it, and should instead judge these things by the evidence we gather from reliable sources.  In other words, just because you can call Nicola Sturgeon "leader of a subnational government", that isn't meaningfully important here.  It's just an arbitrary label, among many such other arbitrary labels, and it has no real bearing on whether or not reliable sources have covered the story.  I mean, maybe we wish that major news sources didn't cover the story, because we don't want major news sources to think that it is a big deal.  That wish is unimportant here.  The sources have covered it at a level that we should realize has made this a big, well-read story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when replacement is announced and then that person should be the main focus of the blurb. --Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for replacement announcement. Unless her resignation has an article of its own, putting this in ITN is nothing more than headline. We're not directing readers to additional content. Kingsif (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nope. Not if we're going to be consistent with how we treated the New Zealand PM.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, "We screwed up once before, so know we must force ourselves to be wrong forever" is a terrible way to make any decision. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You for one supported a combined blurb for the NZ PM only when the successor had been identified. What made the difference there? The close proximity in time between the resignation and the selection? ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I say I was opposed to a combined blurb here? That seems perfectly reasonable.  I'd be fine with that; mentioning the successor seems like a good idea as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't say you were opposed to one, but you also didn't say you were opposed to posting it now without a combined blurb, and that was the impression I got from your !vote above. It's true that you could make the argument that your silence on the matter meant you could go either way on it. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a significant event AlloDoon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per previous precedent on waiting for a successor to be chosen. Yes we are talking about a sub-national government here, but I think the UK should be treated as a special case. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scotland is a nation. And with a population of about five million, a fairly normal sized nation too. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Devolved government is a phenomenon specific to the U.K., and I think it'd be a good idea for us to figure out how we'd handle those types of affairs on a go-forward basis. We seem to run into this issue regularly, and the resulting discussion is cleaved almost in the manner of a party line. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree. The idea that Scotland becomes more important if/once it goes through a political process and depending on the outcomes of that process, does seem inherently not very neutral and a prioritization of current politics over the real world importance of a nation that has relatively high global impact for it's size/population. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this, how is devolved government specific to the UK? The page you linked in fact has a fairly sizeable table of unitary states with devolution. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think one difference is the others are regions, not countries. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that sounds like a semantic/naming issue to me. Do these constituent countries have any particular powers that are unique among other devolved subdivisions/regions/provinces/...? The only major difference I know of is that each of them competes separately in many sports and international competitions, for some reason. YD407OTZ (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scotland has a separate healthcare, police force, legal system, judicial system, culture, centuries old history (most of which was as an independent nation (until 1707) I think mostly with a separate monarchy), and arguably identity. It has a shared military and current monarchy, and lacks control over international relations. Scotland competes in most sports independently, but combined for the Olympics and some sports including athletics events.
 * Importantly, I think, it's commonly perceived as a country. I don't think most people would challenge someone describing it as a country. They might add qualifiers (not an independent country) but compared to the others, which are mostly perceived as regions of countries, most people commonly understand Scotland to be a country, a nation, a national identity. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @YD407OTZ: For what it's worth, I did make an error. I meant that devolved parliament was specific to the U.K., not devolved government. I had the two terms confused. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of those things are things that US states also have. The legal system, culture, and police forces of Louisiana and Florida are different, for example. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - is right; my childish tiff doesn't change the fact this is still a newsworthy story, regardless of our internal machinations.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - In general I am in favor of posting the resignation when it happens as the actual resignation is the story, not the successor. I think Scotland is notable enough of a subnational state to post. Jbvann05  16:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sturgeon's resignation is far more significant than who it is that replaces her, so I'd support this without waiting for a successor. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant event. There are not many democratically elected national leaders who have been in the role for 9+ years. I do not support the line being drawn exactly between sovereign states and former sovereign states that are current medium sized nations, as that feels like a political distinction, not a distinction based on notability and seems to lack neutrality, which I think is important. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until successor is named. --M asem (t) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure a successor is needed in this case, since Scotland isn't a sovereign state (yet). As stated above, the resignation itself is the significant thing in this one, not the change in leadership. Curbon7 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And as the news reports say, the resignation won't happen until a successor is found, which is then the point we should post. If it were a case where the resignation was happening now well before successor was determined, the reporting now and again later works. M asem (t) 19:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. We dont blurb when the governor of California changes either. And just as a matter of economics, that is a monumentally bigger position. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The powers of the Scottish first minister are arguably fewer than those of a state governor, given that the UK government retains power in what it seems reserved areas, as well as having the right to revoke devolution altogether. Plus the area, GDP and population of Scotland are many times less than those CA and other states. Not to mention other regions worldwide. I'm quite surprised so many are supporting this, it looks like UK-centricism to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of UK-centricism on Wikipedia, honestly. We posted news about riots in Northern Ireland that were extremely minor, while equivalent news in the US is not posted. It's annoying. If the Governor of California resigned tomorrow, would we post that story? No. Then we shouldn't post this one, either. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The article itself should include more content about the resignation beyond a single sentence in the lead. Although I didn't agree with it, why would we treat this any differently than the approach for Jacinda Arden (i.e., waiting for a succescor to be announced?) Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. I acknowledge that this is a significant event and Nicole Sturgeon is perhaps more widely known compared to leaders of similar entities, but I also look on the side that this may create an unwanted precedent for posting similar stories in the future. The only way one such story should be posted is if the entity is partially recognised or in a state of war with the parent country (e.g. Somaliland) or if the office has historical and religious significance (e.g. Dalai Lama).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Unexpected change in an important office, with international RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I freak out. What is there to explain about ITNR when it talks about "Changes in the office holder administering the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries qualifying under the above criteria, as listed in List of Current Heads of State and Government, except where such change has already been published as part of a general election”? Scotland is not a fully sovereign state and therefore what happens in the headship of its government is not ITNR and should not be ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has claimed this is ITN/R. Nominations can still be posted even if they are not ITN/R, that's not by itself a reason to oppose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ticks all the boxes, being in the news, significant and reasonable quality. The article is graded as B-class, which is better than most, and is vital too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per DarkSide830 and Masem, then Support per Jayron32. This is one of this year’s most notable political news so far, as Sturgeon has been a leading person in Scottish politics for 15 years by now. It’s almost as notable as Ardern’s resignation, especially in Europe. But as usual, we should wait until the successor has been elected. CDE34RFV (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sensitive to the devolved government factor, but arguably U.S. states have even greater autonomy. Also we should be wary of breaking conventions to post a routine event in the Anglosphere.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scotland is obviously a nation. The issue here is that a Sovereign State is a lot clearer a dividing line than a nation or has a lot of power. If this can be posted is their really an argument that a equivalent story about Quebec, Catalonia or Wales can't be posted?--Llewee (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All of these places are more substantial and significant than Monaco which we are blurbing right now. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until her replacement is chosen. I know Scotland is not an independent country but as mentioned by DarkSide830 the UK is a special case. Not to mention that this is literally in the news right now as she is one of the UK's most prominent politicians (albeit sub-national). Vida0007 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose To post about a change in a nation's government would be ITN-worthy, but ... this is Scotland, don't want to be offensive, but Scotland is merely a Sovereign state. Basically, per all of the above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scotland is a nation. If Quebec is a nation, and there are 500+ First Nations in Canada, I don't know how Scotland isn't a nation. Let alone, it's been a nation for hundreds of years. Nfitz (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing that. But it does not have its own entry on the list of sovereign states, which ITN has always used as its threshold for which elections and leaders to post. We don't post blurbs when the leader of Quebec resigns either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You have this exactly backwards. Scotland is not a sovereign state, but it is a nation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you frequently have no clue what you are talking about. Your comments both here and below in Teddy Joseph Von Nukem are astonishing for just how incorrect they are. To be clear, I am not talking subjectively (i.e. your opinion, which you are entitled to hold), I am talking from an objective perspective, as in your are consistently factually incorrect. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked at further arguments you've made in the past 7 days. Almost all of them are just "per above", and when you do choose to make an argument, it is downright awful, like when you stated the Super Bowl "is just some football match" and thus isn't ITN-worthy. Not gatekeeping, but as this is a complex area of the encyclopedia, I would highly recommend observing and gaining general experience first before jumping right in. Curbon7 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Scotland is not a sovereign country. We wouldn't post the resignation of the governor of a US state, we shouldn't post this. Heck, Scotland didn't even HAVE a parliament until 1999! -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until successor - analogous to what we did with New Zealand a few weeks/months ago QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This may be important and all but Scotland isn't an independent country. as Rockstone stated e wouldn't post the resignation of the governor of a US state or any other leader of a subnational or autonomous region. Why is Scotland an exception? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Scotland is not the equivalent of a US state, in my view, as its parliament has far greater powers than that of a US state. There is just one example of Westminster overriding Holyrood since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament by Scotland Act 1998. Sturegeon has been the longest serving first minister. Her stepping down is rather notable even if not covered by ITN/R. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 22:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, please teach me: which powers does the Scottish Parliament possess that a US state does not? The fact remains that by a simple law, the UK Government could dissolve the Scottish Parliament, but the Federal Government of the United States cannot do the same to a US state. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. The US federal government can invoke the Supremacy Clause and simply pass legislation dissolving a state legislature. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That isnt how that works. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that's absolutely not that works. The US Constitution prohibits the US Congress from destroying, merging, or creating new states out of old states, or destroying the legislature of a state, without the consent of the state legislature(s) in question. The supremacy clause just means that when a federal law is passed that comports with the constitution but conflicts with a state law, the federal law is supreme. It's similar to the doctrine of primacy in EU law, actually. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support considering as has been stated above, devolved government is a unique phenomena in the UK and Scotland has considerably more autonomy than the average sub-national unit; nearly even that of the Cook Islands and Niue. That said, opening the floodgates for sub-national elections is highly risky. The Kip (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say it's a bad precedent, but here at ITNR, what will happen is that people will make a singular exception since it's taking place in the UK, which, as we all know, is the only country that matters here on Wikipedia. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * California has more autonomy from the US than Scotland has from the UK. The governor is also commander in chief of the California National Guard (except when federalized), and the chief executive of an economy ~177x larger than Scotland. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should post when a California governor resigns. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * good luck with that nom, Im sure youll have the same enthusiastic support as this one got as there has never been any indication that stories about the US would ever be downplayed here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until replacement is actually named. People announce resignations and then rescind them, so upon her actual stepping down this would make sense to post. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sturgeon leads a subnational govt., so this isn’t important enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until successor is chosen, then support – large news, and constituent countries of the UK are much larger international stories than other subnational entities. Comparisons to things like the government of California don't make that much sense to me: California is larger (in population, area, economy, etc.) than many sovereign states, and certainly larger and possesing a greater influence than the SADR, yet we posted that. DecafPotato (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SADR is on List of sovereign states, Scotland is not. Which is why the comparison is between two sub-national governments. The idea that constituent countries of the UK are much larger international stories than other subnational entities is both a blatant example of UK-centric systemic bias as well as being a figment of your imagination. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The point was that California has more significant influence than states like the SADR, and yet the SADR gets posted and California does not (for good reason) – I was emphasizing that whether a state gets posted is not about the influence of the state itself, it's about how big of international stories the event is. In this case, the countries of the UK are significant international stories. And allegations of a UK bias seem silly to me – they can be made once I oppose a nomination for a change of leadership for a similar territory on importance. DecafPotato (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The countries of the UK aren’t necessarily significant international stories. In most cases, what happens at a subnational level only has national implications. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that SADR is a recognized sovereign state by a number of other states, making that comparison irrelevant. The comparison between two sub-national leaders, eg the first minister of Scotland and governor of California, however is a valid comparison, and in every way you can make that comparison (land size, economy, population, independence from its national government, power of the office), the governor of California is an office of much greater import. And because we would never post the governor of California resigning or the office changing hands, it would logically follow that we likewise should not post the first minister of Scotland. Yall cant keep making these special rules to rule out anything American and expect the same rules to not apply to that special island filled with, apparently, Wikipedians. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The SADR is recognized as a country by 45 UN member states, so comparing it to Scotland or California is apples to oranges. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Teddy Joseph Von Nukem

 * Are you nominating this as a blurb or a recent death? Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. I'm new to this and uncertain, but did this because I thought recent deaths of people with articles are usually qualifying, so I guess therefore recent deaths, and is this in the wrong place? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, you've just used the wrong template. I've fixed it for you. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Died 30 January, but wasn't announced until today it appears. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article has a lot of problems, such that it is a stub, has citation problems, and tons more. also, this person died over 2 weeks ago, so that defeats the purpose of RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable to post recent death announcements if the death occurred some time previously but wasn't reported. That isn't a reason to oppose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is rated as start class. It has never been a stub. I cannot see any citation problems, but if you are specific I will immediatly fix any that you identify. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One problem (not citation-based) is that "took his own life" is a MOS:EUPHEMISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is exactly guided by the advice at WP:DEATH subsection on suicide and I would encourage you to read up on why terms like "committed suicide" are technically incorrect and problematic.
 * see
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Death/Suicide_task_force, and
 * https://reportingonsuicide.org/recommendations/
 * Please <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:SUICIDE. I have no idea what advice at WP:DEATH you mean, I can't find it, but in any case such a local consensus of a task force can't overrule a MOS guideline or an RfC. There is nothing "technically incorrect" about "committed suicide". Fram (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I used the words "technically" because commit tends to mean and certainly implies crime or sin. E.g. People commit murder, they don't commit death. People commit sins, they don't commit lunch. But I think the MOS supports how I wrote it:
 * The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide, including, died as a result of suicide. died by suicide, died from suicide, killed himself, The cause of death was suicide.
 * So I think I'm inline with the MOS. Or have I missed something?
 * Would also encourage us moving this content dispute to the talk page. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The advice at WP:DEATH I refer to is the first numbered point of the links that follow. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a "numbered point" on WP:DEATH or the suicide task force. I am merely saying that "took his own life" is a euphemism. "Died by suicide" and the other options at MOS:SUICIDE are good. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those words are no longer in the article. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is 1100 bytes of prose, which is too short. Someone may have rated it Start-class, but I think it's Stub-class. I also don't think he meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Article has been expanded and is now definitely not a Stub. I'm unsure about notability but not necessarily to the point of nominating it for AfD myself, so I'll just strike my opposition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you nominate a recently dead person at AfD, they may reject because the person has recently died, with the notion that sources potentially could turn up to prove GNG. It's a really bad standard.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it'd be a mess that falls victim to recentism and so I won't be doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now Support as it looks likely to be kept. I advocate for WP:IAR and posting it even if the nomination is archived before the AfD closes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is well sourced. Pinging, because the article has been expanded. Sahaib (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citations in the article show trivial coverage and does not suggest notability beyond 1EVENT.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the ITN/RD guidlines does it even hint that RDs have to have significant, major, widespread coverage.  Crusader 1096  (message) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He was noted a lot in 2017 for his role at the rally and then again this month noted a lot for his suicide on the day of his court appearance for drug smuggling. So that's clearly 2 events. Nonetheless, I proposed it because I thought the "recent deaths" things was fairly simple that people with articles who recently died is the rubric. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable as the template says that, but it is a misreading of the RfC. The standard is that anyone who meets GNG is eligible for RD. I dispute that he meets GNG. Some will suggest that GNG can only be disputed by entering a AfD, but this has never been established by consensus.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the context of multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage about him in 2017 and 2023, including the Washington Post, I don't agree with your assertion. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per @Sahaib  Crusader 1096  (message) 21:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Article is now at AfD, which makes it ineligible for posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The AfD now appears to be a solid keep, which makes it eligible for posting. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right but it will have to be resolved before posting as it can't go up with the AfD tag still on it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm going to stop following this conversation, the incorrect statement that this article was a stub, the questionable suggestion is doesn't meet WP:GNG and now the nomination to delete makes this part of wikipedia seem unfriendly and reminiscent of the only other time I tried to nominate something. I only made this suggestion because of encouragement to but it really seems that participants here are looking for excuses to reject. If my lack of participation means this won't pass, that's OK. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * there are many problems at ITN/C, no doubt, but please don't take from this that you shouldn't participate here. We desperately need new voices to shake things up. We may still disagree on many things: I stand by my belief that this version was a stub, but I accept that opinions may differ. The present version is definitely not a stub, so I think my comment may have spurred article improvement, which is a good thing. As for my earlier thought that this might not meet GNG, taking a look at the AfD, that one is likely going to be proven wrong by community consensus. Assuming that has a WP:SNOW close as keep, this can be posted to ITN once that happens. As long as we are able to disagree politely, this can still be a constructive part of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This area might have a less desperate need for new voices if trying to engage here felt less like a hazing. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion either way on this nomination, but I definitely agree with this. The combination of rules-lawyering and the tolerance of disruptive behaviour from a small handful of established regulars makes this a very dicey area to work in. I focus on it myself in part to try to alleviate that, but there's only so much one person can do. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you review this nomination, you'll find one set of people employing long-standing policy and procedure to advance the project, and others characterizing this as hazing, unfriendliness, and rules-lawyering. Maybe you're right; we are too tolerant of disruptive behavior.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree we tolerate too much bad behavior here, but I don't see any in this section. We are nitpicky perhaps but all of the comments here have been about the article and improving the encyclopedia. It hasn't been personal. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD – Article looks solid, and AfD looks like a strong keep. There's a lot of negative things to say about he subject, but it's frustrating to see this chat being so hostile to the entire nomination. Yes it was initially stub-sized and had a low number of citations, but look at how much the article has improved in less than a day. That's what ITN should be all about and we should be proud of CT55555's hard work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD The article has been significantly improved (even if it is kinda short to me), and I have seen no sourcing issues in it. While there is an AfD nomination, it looks like that the article would be kept, as mentioned by Maplestrip above. Vida0007 (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD The quality’s good enough & it looks like the article won’t be deleted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Quality is good enough and the AFD (in which I !voted too keep) seems unlikely to result in deletion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Friedrich Cerha

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. A spot-check of the sources in the Works section shows they do cite the compositions listed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jerry Jarrett

 * Comment Bibliography and "Championships and accomplishments" sections needs refs. Also ITN got messed up during this RD nomination, but at least I got this fixed. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, when in doubt about a wrestler's C&A section, check External Links. Cagematch, Wrestlingdata or the IWD should set the record straight. That's not to say it's a good excuse for missing inline footnotes, just a good spot for quick verification. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've cited the bibliography to Cagematch, which sounds worse than it is, as the Wikiproject can attest. For a wrestler's article, this looks almost too clean. Some expansion is definitely possible, but it's long enough for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can back this up for anyone unfamiliar, Cagematch is about the most reputable source for wrestling card details there is. The Kip (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still has remaining CN tags.  Spencer T• C 01:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No tags remain. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing issues resolved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This looks good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There remain unreferenced claims, and an unreferenced accomplishments section. Stephen 22:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shoichiro Toyoda

 * Comment Generally well sourced, but some citations are still needed to the article. Agree that this individual deserves the recognition. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Engineerchange: I think these issues have been addressed now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as the article is sourced. Sahaib (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, sources appear to have been added! --Engineerchange (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated Have finally completed initial round of edits to cover key achievements during his career. Would note that Earwig says copyvio unlikely, but the rather high match rate exceeding 30% is due to the very long list of awards that appear to have been copied over from two Toyota-affiliated websites. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Toxic spill in Ohio, U.S.

 * Support as nominator  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Bizarrely, this derailment got little MSM attention when it happened, but it's getting more now. This is an even bigger story than the media is suggesting with significant long-term impact for the people in that area, and possibly with bigger spread than we expect. Posting this is a good way to overcome the bias of underreported stories. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Needs work  The nomination first cited sources from 10 days ago (now changed to 5 sources from Feb 12–14) and the identity of the nominator is confusing (synapticrelay/Knightoftheswords281/Crusader 1096?).  There does seem to be fresh coverage such as What We Know About the Train Derailment in Ohio but this needs presenting more clearly so that we understand what's in the news now . Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed  Crusader 1096  (message) 23:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If a story broke over a week ago, it can't be nominated unless something else occurs later on that is blurbable. Unfortunately, this is what we define as stale. <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 16:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The controlled burn was on the 6th, and that would arguably be just as blurbable. I think this feels like an ongoing, but the events have already been slowing down.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That was also over a week ago now, which would also be stale. The time to blurb this was missed. <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 16:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, stale is when something is older than the oldest currently posted event.. There are 2-3 items in the box older than the burn off.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stale Story is not recent; derailment happened on February 3, the oldest current blurb in the template, the Chinese balloon that was shot down on February 4, is newer, so there's no place to post this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The news coverage has been a slow burn (pun intended) and I think WP:IAR applies here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a textbook ongoing item.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you support a blurb or do you support ongoing? The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Stale and on Notability. Even if this item is judged not to be stale, the impacts here are questionable at best. The article does not properly explain how many people were displaced and only suggests the evacuation orders were in place for a few days. The section on potential health impacts almost exclusively contains speculative and alleged items without any proper support. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability? According to this op-ed, people as far as 30 miles away have experienced symptoms of nausea, headache, teeth pain, vomiting, diarrhea, sinus congestion, and shortness of breath. People well outside the evacuation zone have left their homes because the waterways are polluted with chemical smells and dead fish. Also there have been a growing number of reports about people experiencing a burning sensation in their eyes, animals falling ill and a strong odor lingering in the town. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * True or not, I don't see this substantiated in the target article, which again, I will note, seems to be mostly speculating. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Important incident that hadn't caught traction because the media and US gov have been ignoring it, but the forced control burning of hydrogen chloride will have devastating environmental consequences. If the Chinese spy balloons are worthy of a blurb, then this certainly is as well. Rockin (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale. The derailment occurred on February 3, so the topic should be listed in the subsection for that date. However, that date is more than a week ago, so there is no subsection on this page for that event. As such, this should be declined as stale. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would Support a blurb that represents the current state if issue (the massive cleanup, the residents being allowed back), which are aspects as a result if the derailment. The derailment itself was not as deadly as the stuff that potentially leaked. --M asem (t) 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR support. The impacts of this incident, including environmental, legal, and health impacts, seem considerable, more than enough to meet our threshold. There is a Catch-22 with the timing on stories like this one; there is opposition to posting them as soon as they occur because their impact isn't fully known and so they don't receive much coverage; and there is opposition to posting them when they do receive coverage, because it's been long enough that they are "stale". I think that's silly; the story is significant, the article is decent, it's currently in the news, so we should post it. FWIW, we do explicitly allow for this situation with RDs, so it's not much of an IAR. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Support - The news about this has been released mysteriously slowly, and while in general I think our requirement for recency is important, I believe this case is unusual. This is a very serious environmental disaster, with widespread effects. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing mysterious about the world press not running with news from a midwestern town of under 5,000 people. As a lawsuit mentioned in the article requests, the radius to determine if health effects even exist should be 30 miles. I could walk that, and I barely even walk anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a keen walker, and I would consider 30 miles in a day to be a challenge. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stale. Yes more details have emerged, but fundamentally the event is older than the oldest blurb currently in ITN. The ongoing cleanup effort isn't suitable for a blurb (or ongoing), and it appears there have been no casualties. I'm not convinced this would be significant enough even if it had happened today - but that's completely moot for an event that is 11 days old. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the section heading is silly, sensationalist, and not supported by the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is finally starting to get the RS coverage it deserves. We have a good article and it's in the news, and those are the requirements. Davey2116 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not the only requirements. Quoting WP:ITN: "Any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box is considered stale. ... For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources." That was on 3 Feb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that is what the ITN page clearly states, we certainly aren't forced to adhere to rules if it serves encyclopedic interests. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape, and many news sources are now covering it. 2607:9880:2D28:16:3D79:1744:D47C:52D5 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to being stale, there are no deaths. What this comes down to is a bog-standard environmental release - which frequently happens around the world. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This article is fine, and from my perspective of non-US (Swedish) this was just picked up in media in the last day or two so fresh in terms of news reporting. --Chrill (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You indicated support above, then 3 hours later posted this oppose !vote. Which is it? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as original nominator, I would like to argue the case that it is an ongoing event; obviously the train derailed on Feb. 3 but 1. it has until recently been under-reported (dare I say in some ways deliberately, in light of the reporter's arrest) and 2. The actual event being reported on here, the toxic chemical release, is ongoing and notable. Synapticrelay (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. How can we ignore this?  I could not believe that it was negated when it was first nominated?  It is on-going story, highlighting the safety issues that were brought up in the rail strike back in December, and the human collateral damage that has occurred as a result. Jinig (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was negated not just once, but twice.
 * Also be sure to !vote if you want this to be nominated.  Crusader 1096  (message) 23:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Question/comment If this would not be blurbed (as the derailment occurred nearly 2 weeks ago), could this be considered to be posted as an ongoing news item instead? Vida0007 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I would argue this is akin to an RD in which the person dies but it is not significantly reported in the media until later. Kafoxe (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember, a person dying makes the same level of coverage more significant here, per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no MINIMUMDEATHS and you know it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The concrete events are stale. Nausea, headache, teeth pain, vomiting, diarrhea, sinus congestion and shortness of breath, while psychologically irritating, are part of daily life. Strange smells and lethargic animals are a bit less common, but nothing compared to three UFOs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and shortness of breath are a part of your daily life, I recommend you see a doctor. Especially if you're planning to walk 30 miles in a day. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has them all every day, but on any given day in a town that size, you could find hundreds of cases. And I didn't say I was planning to walk that far, or could do it in a day. I have seen my doctor, too, he tells me the same thing he probably tells everyone, quit smoking, exercise more and eat right. Furthermore, MINIMUMDEATHS may not be a written rule, but it is in effect here regardless. Anyway, get well soon, East Palestine, whatever your problems are! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have no seen authoritative sources mirroring the blurbs that say that this is the most dangerous/important/major environmental disaster of this type in the us. There seems to have been no deaths, therefore, and based o nthe recent dominance of really minor american news on this board, i vote to oppose this. this americano-centrism/US-defaultism needs to stop 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be the most dangerous environmental disaster in the U.S. to be notable?--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more of an ongoing event, and I would support it if this event was nominated that way. I tried to support this as a blurb some days ago before until I realized it is stale for ITN blurb. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Should not be regarded as stale, event is still ongoing and deserves more attention. As of today, severity of the environmental impacts is way more significant than the severity of train derailment itself. Whilst a freight derailment isn't exactly world headlines, one incident where it causes biohazardous, wide-spread water, air and ground contamination certainly is. Fengshuo2004 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think it is stale, and it's a lot more based in reality than the superstition and pseudoscience surrounding the UFOs so far. Additionally the article and sources are in much better shape and are of use to those who are learning about the subject for the first time. Ludicrous (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Can any of the alblurbs say which toxic/hazardous chemicals are feared to potentially have which effects on this town? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think it's stale at all, and if you Google "ohio train derailment" you'd see most of the news articles from big companies (at least at the time I'm writing this) were made within the past day. The only thing I would suggest slightly changing is the blurb, maybe something like...
 * A freight train containing hazardous chemicals derails and explodes in East Palestine, Ohio, causing an evacuation of residents due to health concerns.
 * ^^^^ or something along those lines phrogge   'sup?   edits  02:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Event is not stale, still ongoing/developing with articles still being written hourly it seems. The environmental effects are significant with long term effects for the people in the area. Maxorca (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is true, our article is wrong in saying: The evacuation was lifted on February 9 after the U.S. EPA reported that the air inside and outside the evacuation zone had returned to normal levels. Although toxins were detected at the derailment site, they were not detected outside the area. The Ohio EPA also reported that drinking water (sourced from different waterways) was safe. In a testing report from February 8, the Ohio EPA showed to WKBN that vinyl chloride, benzene, some chlorinated organic compounds, and other VOCs were not detected in the water...As of February 12, all 210 homes tested for vinyl chloride and hydrogen chloride have tested negative. So that will have to be fixed. Or something real about the supposed effects will need to be added. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this point it seems too stale. While it no doubt will be causing issues locally for a long time that doesn't make suitable as ongoing events (too local), and while more news might come out about the environmental impact, it's the event itself that is posted here, and the event is mow too old. If we put every ongoing ecological disaster with local intrest in the world into ongoing events where going to end up with a massive list.


 * To give an example of a similar ecological disaster that has had ongoing local interest I would point to 2021 North-East England shellfish die-off. While this event continues to cause ecological disaster and news continues to come out about who is responsible (with fingers being pointed at negligent business and government), by the time enough news was reported it was fundamentally to old for ITN and too local for ongoing events. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notability. Disasters happen all the time across the world, many of them more serious than this one, but not in a Western country. We have this week 20 deaths from a meningitis outbreak, 20 deaths from a bus crash, 12 deaths from flooding, 9 deaths from a Marburg outbreak, reports about 1400 deaths from a "record cholera outbreak" in Malawi (and across Africa, one that would much more warrant an "ongoing" entry than this Ohio one), and so on. This one, while not negligible, is not major enough to be posted here. Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Possibly an unfolding environmental disaster, which is a more recent development. 142.127.187.55 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stale, and not notable enough to justify IAR. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There seems like all the news stations are covering up this disaster, and now Wikipedia too. --Yilku1 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is covering up anything, and certainly not Wikipedia. We are not a news station and a lack of posting to ITN does not constitute a coverup. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there was a Wikipedia in 1986 they would refuse to add the Chernobyl disaster because there wasn't any human casualties in the firsts day of the accident. Yilku1 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Two humans died and over two hundred were hospitalized on Day One of Chernobyl, half of them clearly and acutely radioactive. If anybody's gone to the East Palestine hospital in the last twelve days for anything chloride-related yet, the article sure doesn't mention it. Maybe someone or something else is covering up the untold number of casualties, but that's beyond Wikipedia's control. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the nom is only stale if we are dating from the derailment. The release and burn is newer than several items currently in the box.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per staleness but also being a small scale environmental disaster, the long term effects may not be substantial enough, and in either case, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we should not be using "potential long term effects" as a metric to support its being posted. No humans have died (yet), and the region in question isn't some particularly sensitive site or something like that that would justify particular attention to a spill that affects a small town. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Like, if it spilled directly into the Ohio river (threatening other states like WV KY etc.), or like the Cuyahoga river caught fire and threatened a big city like Cleveland... then yeah this event would be clearly notable enough to merit being posted. But as it is, the impact is low; and we cannot speculate on future impacts per CRYSTALBALL. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. No human fatalities. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support news of this has been building and building. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Story is stil developing and is not stale at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should mention the country in which this event took place, in order to make the item more accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. People can just follow the blue link. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Major environmental disaster with a huge international coverage. ArionEstar (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the news story has escalated from "train crash, no deaths" to "huge cloud of toxic chemicals", and I think that escalation justifies it going on ITN even if it's later than ideal. Blythwood (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is now getting more spotlight in the European media, so I am getting incline to support, and the consensus seems to be heading this way. I am willing to post, just please make a blurb that makes it clear this is a news item now, not when the accident took place. --Tone 17:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like Alt Blurb III shows why it's still important now. - Rockin (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb V - This is clearly a major incident with wide repercussions; AltBlurb V strikes the right balance of encyclopedic tone, clear information, and a good first impression of why the story matters. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ETA: I didn't mean to give the appearance of double-!voting there; just to say that Blurb V is the one which works best in my opinion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Currently developing disaster with ongoing international coverage. May be best suited for an "ongoing" designation; otherwise I agree with GenevieveDEon above in favoring AltBlurb V. — Matthew  / (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Props to Alt V for specifying the chemical, but the article only notes one brief evacuation (of multiple people) and no health issues. If it said "health concerns and an evacuation occur", it would be the most accurate description. What it describes is still stale and not a disaster, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article itself may need work. However, your last sentence doesn't comport with news sources available online. — Matthew  / (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I realize there's a call to call it a disaster, but a call is not a declaration. It's just something people say. Disasters are like emergencies, officially. Rhetorically, sure, I don't comport. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment What if we put it into ongoing? Alt V is kind of long...--Tone 21:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support that. It appears to be ok with the original nominator too. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the updates have been substantial enough. There was a controlled burn on the 6th, EPA reports on the 8th and a town hall meeting on the 15th. There might be further statements, if I had to guess, and continued analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like it'd look like so much less of a big deal compared to the Russo-Ukrainian crisis that's going on, plus with what the others said about the lack of notable updates, unless something huge happens in the next few days I don't think it should go into ITN or ongoing, anymore at least. phrogge   'sup?   edits  02:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By 'crisis' you here mean 'war of conquest', presumably? Let's not be euphemistic. But you're right in another sense - while the East Palestine crash is a developing situation, it doesn't currently have the kind of profile and reach that 'Ongoing' is usually for. I would oppose a move to put it there. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I notice today that this article is now getting more readers than the Turkish/Syria earthquakes. And way more than the NZ cyclone and the fires in Chile.  And that's without any help from ITN, while those other three all have blurbs. The readership peaked a week after the earthquakes and so it's obviously still in the news and not stale. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing if we can't make a blurb work, though a blurb might be nicer. Article has seen an enormous amount of editing in the past 24 hours, and this is clearly a news item that Wikipedia is actively covering. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this is NOT stale with the sparked debate and all its impacts.<span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Either as ongoing or blurb, with preference to Altblurb 5. The situation is significant and is still developing. This kind of environmental catastrophe is very similar to the incident an der Oder last year which we posted. Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Wha happen? I thought MINIMUMDEATHS was a hard and fast rule, yet people are supporting posting an environmental disaster that has no deaths. Is this for real? All these supporters must just be plain wrong. There's no other answer for it. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Support Yeah, its stale. But this is a story that has only recently started getting front page news coverage and I think this is the sort of thing that we would have posted it had gotten this level of coverage from the start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Potential Misinformation Advisory There's an active discussion on the article's Talk Page about adding a bunch of conspiracy theories, lies and other misinformation. I've been trying to stop them, but I'm going home now. Things could get pretty dubious. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, weak support blurb. Got increasing news coverage subsequent to the incident.  Spencer T• C 04:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR support. Article is in good shape and after some delay in coverage, this is now being talked about in the world media.  Schwede 66  09:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb V per Curbon7 Koltinn|talk 14:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting alt V. Feel free to modify, I am sure the blurb could be better. I was about to post earlier but there was an OR orange tag, which has since been fixed. --Tone 17:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, indicate that it occurs in the United States. Not everyone knows where Ohio is. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I originally supported this until "stale" arguments led me to oppose the blurb, but now I understand that this is a serious environmental disaster that affects the Earth as a whole. Until now, I didn't know how significant this disaster was at the large scale of things. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Gabrielle

 * Support Article is of good quality and subject is notable enough. The Kip (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment it was the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes where a national state of emergency was declared, not the 2019 shootings. Maple Doctor (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, story is being covered by news in a way that indicates this is a major story. Prefer initial blurb over altblurb as the altblurb is too wordy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support & Question Article looks good and it seems to be a pretty significant storm. As a question, have we put a gif as an image on the front page before for ITN? It's a good GIF; I just was unsure on what the previous precedence is. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 14:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have done gifs before, as long as they are prepared for a thumbnail-sized view M asem (t) 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OTD has a very cool GIF on the main page currently (right). ITN hasn't got the cyclone pic up yet and so looks weak by comparison. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support original blurb. The article is in good shape, the state of emergency is unusual, and this is getting international media attention. However current reports show light damage (for a cyclone) and only one casualty, with the main effects being localised floods, power cuts and precautionary evacuations - hence only weak support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - An incredibly unusual event, which would be sufficient to overcome the low death toll in terms of significance weighting. As a fellow New Zealander, thank you,, for nominating this. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support though I would stick to the first blurb. Superlatives (3rd time in NZ history) are rather subject to the importance if the event and can be left out. --M asem (t) 15:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support with the first blurb. A national state of emergency is a big deal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Vehement Wait. Just because an event is rare does not mean it is ITN worthy. I would presume this cyclone reaches notability after landfall, but assuming any lasting impact now outside of the trivia realm in regards to the state of emergency is clear CRYSTAL. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not landfall. But point being made we should wait for a bit more impact here. The "3rd time x country has delclared a state of emergency" is trivia material. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My !vote is based on what we know now, which is the state of emergency, not measuring any future impacts. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is of sufficient quality for the main page and the topic is widely covered enough to warrant inclusion on the main page. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good to be blurbed, and this is quite significant considering that Gabrielle impacted NZ shortly after the 2023 North Island floods and this is the third time that a state of emergency was declared in NZ (and the first for a weather event). The original blurb looks better than the other, but I would suggest that another blurb should be made, something that goes like: A state of emergency has been declared in New Zealand after Cyclone Gabrielle causes widespread damage and flooding across the country. Vida0007 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This cyclone has been devastating to thousands, this should definitely be posted, Vriend1917 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This was posted last night by . <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The day's section (February 14) got duplicated in an attempt to nominate Jerry Jarret to RD, I'm fixing this. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment If this is going to be blurbed, then altblurb 1 should be used. The rare national state of emergency seems like the only possible reason this is notable enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Michigan State University shooting

 * Beyond the injury that comes from having these stories continuously happen here in the States, there is the added insult of the rancorous discussion that results here on ITN/C from both sides whenever a mass shooting occurs. I wish that we could just blacklist these types of nominations forevermore since we seem incapable of handling it civilly here, but naturally, that is a fool's hope. Regardless, I for one will not tolerate any side-discussions that erupt into back-and-forth battles regarding the politics and prevalence of mass shootings in the U.S., and I will see to it that does not occur. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This doesn't rise to some of the (admittedly verbal) thresholds that we would normally see for mass shootings in the U.S. in terms of notability, even with all added extenuating circumstances such as being a shooting at a university, or one where the suspect remains at large. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic for those affected, but mass shootings are sadly not unusual in the United States. If we posted in ITN every time three people were killed in a shooting that would be 15 blurbs already this year (per List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023) - and we're only 6 weeks in. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most mass shootings in the US do not happen at a university, but while tragic the relatively low level of casualties means it does not meet the signifcance bar for me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose based in reports, appears to be a domestic, non terrorism related crime. Tragic, but we don't post such common domestic crimes. --M asem (t)•


 * Oppose Run of the mill mass shooting. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sad that we've reached the point where this can be a sentence.  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I hate to sound callous, but three dead and five injured makes this comparatively minor in the grand scheme of US mass shootings. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as creator of article - Doesn't meet the 10+ death threshold or have a notable motive.  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Although I would say to Knightoftheswords281 that there is no minimum deaths criterion, nonetheless this is tragically a relatively commonplace event in the USA. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lalita Lajmi

 * Not ready Needs more than a little source work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Jakub Jankto

 * Question As a comparison, did we post when Jason Collins or Carl Nassib came out? The Kip (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip I've just checked it: Collins did got posted (only after an immensely long discussion, though), whereas Nassib did not make the cut. Oltrepier (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose important and also congrats man but I don't think that's for in the news 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous consensus about athletes being the first in their sporting division to come out. Rockin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @RockinJack18 Thank you for flagging that discussion, I wasn't aware of it at all.
 * I'll just clarify that he's actually the first footballer actively involved in senior international football to come out, rather than in one specific division: I don't know if that would change anything, though... Oltrepier (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Congrats to him, but I don’t believe that one semi-famous athlete coming out as a sexuality is as importantly as other things. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good for him, still, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Beyond the point of significance, this article is a stub. The good news there is a five-fold expansion for featuring via WP:DYK should be possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu True! I was especially confused about the complete lack of information on his international career...
 * Anyway, I guess it would just be better to try there, at this point. Thanks for the advice! Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you all for the feedback! This was my first ever nomination, so I wasn't aware of those previous discussions on the topic: admittedly, I should have done my research better...
 * Plus, even though I mentioned a few other users in the lead template, I take full responsibility for the nomination, since I didn't ask any of them directly before doing this. I know it's probably not a big deal, but still, I wanted to clarify it. Oltrepier (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guido Basso

 * NOTE: Hope to work on this tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be ready to go now. Other contributions are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Could use some expansion, but sufficient for our purposes. Well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some expansion completed. Flibirigit (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2022–2023 Peruvian protests

 * Remove per OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove Last update was on February 3 for a arrest update, after that was a bunch of disruptive editing and copy-edits and even a protection for the article. Remove per OP. Tails   Wx  14:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove said well by everyone in the replys. Vriend1917 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove I really hate to vote this way, since the protests are still happening, but by WP guidelines the article hasn’t been updated enough to remain in ongoing. The Kip (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose Removal just because no major events are occuring, doesn't mean it's over. just like the Mahsa Amini protests, there are no current events, but they can come up at any time. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Criteria isn't whether the events are still occurring but whether the article is being updated. I hate to say it, but it's not. The Kip (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed. I checked the article a couple of days ago for that reason but decided not to nominate it yet. If there is new development, a blurb nomination is welcome. --Tone 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zia Mohyeddin

 * Not ready – Multiple and  tags in the article.  Tails   Wx  13:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The tags look resolved now. Joofjoof (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl

 * Support – article is good on quality, ITNR item. DecafPotato (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is already good quality. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 03:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article even has a full recap in place. There are some empty stat tables but I assume this is waiting official box scoring. Yes, post-airing aspects like viewership etc will come later, but that won't affect the existing quality of the article. (Also we should include the MVP once announced). --M asem (t) 03:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready The tables at the bottom are largely unsourced. The starting lineup box is empty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tables are now properly sourced. Looks good to go. Support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good, ready to be posted. Still depressed over my loss though. Vriend1917 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fuck the Eagles.  Crusader 1096  (message) 03:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the kind (and constructive) words! DarkSide830 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That holding call at the end was a load of garbage! BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, support, seems to be high enough quality. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITNR, should probably be posted immediately. Articles mostly goood. Don't get people like @Ad Orientem who think that every article in ITN has to adhere 100% strictly to every minor-ass clause in the MOS before posting.  Crusader 1096  (message) 03:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They should though, and the points raised are important. That said, the official box scores should be around for these to fill and source these M asem (t) 03:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, some tables need filling-out but article is otherwise of good quality. The Kip (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, good article and significant. Rockin (Talk) 04:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - let's get this one up. stats tables have been filled out and others (lineups, records) that may not have reporting as fast have been hidden.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We gonna get the photo? The Kip (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * even if not, Mahomes being MVP should absolutely be there DecafPotato (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d say no, the earthquake is still more prevalent for now (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also a bummer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (Post Posting) Pull Photo - While the SuperBowl win is clearly ITN, it would make more sense to have a picture from the earthquake, which has had now a week straight of media coverage over the SuperBowl MVP. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be a better discussion for ERRORS. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so actually. The picture was added with the posting, so this is similar to the post-posting pull !vote discussions that occur, just instead of pulled the event, it is for pulling the picture. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I given it's a multiple-blurbs issue and this thread could get shut down quickly I'm simply not sure discussing here is the best idea. Just my 2 cents though. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not technically an error per WP:ITNPICT: The picture should be for the uppermost blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As you say, it had a week straight, time to stop binging on static misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to sound callous, but if anything, the fact that the earthquake photo's been there a week is argument enough to go to the Mahomes photo. The Kip (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The counter argument would be what is more notable/important? Mahomes or an extremely deadly earthquake with 35,000 deaths? The media is still having breaking news stories and updates about the earthquake. In retrospect, the earthquake is “the” natural disaster which had gained international attention since Hurricane Ian. In 2-3 days, Mahomes will just be a passing mention in a Super Bowl article, but there is a high chance the earthquake will still be a top story. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The counterargument to that is that’s not how we do things here. Items are posted in chronological order, the earthquake happened a week ago and the Super Bowl happened today. We don’t consider perceived notability/importance. The Kip (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. I support posting the article, and I think that the photo is more than appropriate given that Mahomes was the MVP of the Super Bowl. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I support posting the blurb, but I think it should be second-slot below the earthquake, which should also probably have the picture slot. This is an opportunity to actually fight against Americentrism and systemic bias. Our ordinary processes would bump the story about the earthquake in Asia that killed tens of thousands and injured almost 100,000 (so far) in favor of the story about the Super Bowl, but we could WP:IAR that and do what's actually proper, respectful, and proportional from a global viewpoint. Levivich (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not actual fighting, it's slacktivism. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that, it's affirmative slacktion. Levivich (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Zoinks! Good luck packaging that craze. If you do get your way, at least change the earthquake picture; it's beginning to fade into wallpaper levels of impact. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is probably a newer/different earthquake picture than could be used. I hope I get my way. Great human suffering > sports and our main page shouldn't suggest the opposite, even if the sports news is more recent. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Main Page isn't going to stop talking about how the earthquake keeps killing and wounding an evergrowing number of people, relax. It's just several pixels lower, in effective text. People will be bummed, no matter how happy others are with the Chiefs. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW...
 * Super Bowl happened more recently by a week, therefore it's the most recent blurb. That's how it is. The Kip (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ...fight against Americentrism and systemic bias: No, the order was determined per existing WP:ITNBLURB: Blurbs are posted in rough chronological order by the date when the event occurred.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the effect, not the rule. Levivich (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it was a cherry-picked effect. The rule could just as equally bump an American-related blurb.  The rule doesn't discriminate based on a blurb's topic. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly call this a "cherry picked effect"? There is only one Main Page. There is only one cherry to pick. Look at the main page right now. Super Bowl, and picture of MVP, ahead of worst natural disaster on Earth in many years. That's the effect: the effect of "sports is more important than human suffering". It's not cherry-picked, it's a result of the Super Bowl happening a week after the earthquake, and us following chrono order and refusing to consider any other order. That's an Americentric effect because the outcome is that it appears like we're putting US news ahead of more important world news (it appears that way because that's what we're doing, even if we don't intend to do it, it's still the plain effect of our process: Super Bowl above earthquake). Honestly, read WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, it's talking about this exact thing (it even talks about ITN). It has nothing to do with intent, and effects cannot be "cherry picked" because effects aren't picked at all. One cannot cherry pick an outcome for pete's sake: we're talking the main page right now. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And by the way, that rules says, it doesn't say , so the rule doesn't even require this blurb to be on the top. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The next sentence says You're ignoring all sorts of rules with this suggestion. It isn't up to ITN to editorialize by deciding which stories are more important than others. Plus there's already enough arguing about about what to post at all, let alone in what order. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 06:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on the word, which means "not always". Levivich (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for defining "generally" for me. Extremely helpful. The bottom line is this suggestion goes against multiple ITN guidelines no matter how pedantic you want to be. ITN isn't set up (nor should it be) to decide what story is more important than others. I'd love to see you speak to that instead of snarkily defining words everyone already knows. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I'd be happy to speak to that without snark:
 * ITN is set up to allow for non-chronological order. WP:ITN says "generally not sorted by any degree of importance", which allows the possibility of sometimes--if rarely--sorting by a degree of importance. This is one of those times when we should do that.
 * Even if ITN absolutely forbade sorting by order of importance (which it doesn't), the fifth pillar and WP:IAR would allow us to ignore that rules if we felt it would benefit the encyclopedia to do so.
 * Here, it would benefit the encyclopedia to do so, because not doing so gives the unintended impression that we feel the Super Bowl is more important than the earthquake.
 * ITN doesn't usually decide the relative importance of stories, but that doesn't mean it can't, in certain appropriate circumstances, do exactly that. Indeed, the plain language of WP:ITN ("generally") contemplates that we would do exactly that at least sometimes. This is one of those times. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, rough was referring to events in the same day: There is usually no effort made to be more specific than the date, and admins will generally not research the exact minute when an event occurred to make sure that multiple events that occurred on the same date are strictly in order. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on the word, which means "not always."
 * Look guys, disagree with me if you want to, but don't tell me going out-of-chrono order is prohibited by a rule, because it plainly isn't. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The “loose chronological order” is regarding things happening in a short stretch, i.e. if an election happens on the same day as the Super Bowl admins don’t particularly care which one gets posted first and won’t go down to the to-the-minute details of whether the SB finished before the election was called or the other way around.
 * There’s a chasm of difference when one event occurred a full week before the other, and your comments are absolutely reeking or WP:RGW. The Kip (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The words mean "sometimes sorted by some degree of importance". Levivich (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that that’s not just a stretch in logic, that’s a leap across the Grand Canyon. The Kip (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You want the rules to only apply to American stories and non-American stories to get bumped up simply because they aren't American? ITN discussions are wild these days. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 05:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Chronological order is a thing. The Kip (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Proportionality, relative importance, and appearances, are all also "things". Levivich (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But chronological order is a thing that’s enshrined in how ITNR works. The rest… aren’t. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, look at the language, it says "rough", "generally", "usually". So chrono order is not "enshrined", it's not inflexible. "How ITNR works" is that it allows for non-chrono order sometimes -- rarely -- but sometimes.
 * Second, WP:IAR is enshrined in how Wikipedia works. "No firm rules" is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia.
 * At the risk of sounding repetitive: disagree with me if you want, but don't claim there is a rule against this, because there isn't, and because even if there were such a rule, we have no firm rules anyway. Levivich (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the current talk page thread "food for thought" regarding story ordering (after the LeBron record had been posted). The consensus there is to avoid disrupting the order even for IAR reasons. M asem (t) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the discussion; I do not see the consensus you see, I see a lack of consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lack of a clear consensus means revert to the status quo, which is to not re-order events because we feel like it. The Kip (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the picture, if we are regularly going to kick up a fuss about having an image of an athlete on the Main Page at the same time a disaster is in the news*, then we need to hash out a procedure for which we would make that determination. We can't do it on an IAR/ad hoc basis because not everyone here agrees that it's a worthy use of WP:IAR, which in my mind requires a near-unanimous consensus. If it's so important that we do this, we can come to an agreement on a small process to ad hoc the ITN template/image ordering based on what's in the news. By doing so, we can prevent future derailment of this type in ITN/C threads.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC) * - in the ITN sense, since the story is over a week old
 * The discussion I started last week on WT:ITN, regarding more serious blurbs over less serious ones, seemed to suggest that we should not try to seek determination of what is more important than others once posting has been set by consensus. The only rule that then remains is to try to keep the picture for 24 hr before moving onto the next one, which I know the quake one had been up for multiple days, so the replacement follows the consensus here. No playing favorites, for all purposes. M asem (t) 13:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose image pull - for God's sake, yes we get it, an earthquake occured in Turkey and Syria. Tens of thousands died. A true tragedy of magnitude. But my brethren in Christ, the Turko-Syrian earthquake should not remain front and center of ITN. This section is for recent news, not the biggest news, we shouldn't just ground ITN just because of a major disaster. We've already had a story pulled because people got mad and thought that by including it, we we're somehow being disrespectful to the victims. The earthquake is a tragedy, but we're not finna ground every single change to ITN because of it. But nah, we gotta "respect the victims" and "combat Americanism", or some bullshit like that. Listen, if you're that concerned about the earthquake, get off your ass and donate to a charity, or something else besides pulling or rearranging content on ITN (like @Levivich proposed).  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done both and hope you do, too. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. For all the issues charities have, I'm sure that was more helpful than altering the English Wikipedia's ITN section to try and place the tragedy as front and center.  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * • Weak Oppose This news is not reallt ITN-worthy, sure, some team won a football match, but this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. Article looks good, though. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Super Bowl is a huge event in sports (and the biggest in all of American football) and is listed at ITNR as something that is always important enough to post if high enough quality. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope this is satire. The Kip (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think 5426387, since this is ITNR. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Killing of Brianna Ghey

 * I've amended this to a blurb nomination, since the target article is not an article on a single person. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was under the impression from the template instructions that all recent death nominations, which I read as including killings, were to use the shorter blurbless version. Thanks for correcting that and writing a quick blurb, though one correction Warrington is about 180 miles away from London. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots of people die unnatural deaths everyday. This needs some additional angle of notability. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose The article gives no indication of why this is more important than anyone else being murdered. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Biographies of people whose names are in the titles of their Death articles are eligible for permanent inclusion on the main RD list, so should be for our downstream subset, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not true, particularly when there's question of the notability of the event to start with. M asem (t) 02:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's damn true. I was there for the RfCs and followup discussions. In this case, though, there's no biographical content beyond the basics, so you could discount it on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If the death/killing/murder itself is notable, but it is agreed that the article may not be blurb worthy, I would agree that RD for the victim makes sense. But we have a double case of questions on the notability of the person and the event around them, and that would not make it appropriate for RD. Otherwise, I could pursue a number of local papers, pull out news coverage of the death of a non-notable person which would fail NOTNEWS, and suggest that name for RD. We need notability of the person or the event (or both) but absent either, that's a problem. M asem (t) 02:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic, but the article does not substantiate significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why is there even an article on this?? (Yes, I understand there's a major debate in the UK regarding trans individuals, but unless this sparks a huge amount of public response, this appears to be a simple domestic crime we don't cover under NOTNEWS) --M asem (t) 02:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the nom, this shouldn’t even be an article unless it becomes apparent it was a hate crime. The Kip (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Should this be closed since I just nominated the article for deletion? Not sure whether ITN allows a discussion to continue or not in this circumstance. <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 02:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably. The Kip (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Re-posted) RD: Killing of Brianna Ghey (renomination)

 * Support RD I don't think this merits a blurb as its still not clear if its a hate crime, and even so, its a single, previously non-notable person. But as the event is considered notable by the AFD, then the victim qualifies for an RD from the previous discussion.
 * M asem (t) 02:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have moved this renomination to the subject's date of death. The article recently survived an AfD and is thus eligible for consideration at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Support RD I think this meets RD standards. I'm fairly sure we've piped a "Killing of" article in the RD section before.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a biography? @Ad Orientem It was my impression from WP:ITNRD and In the news/Candidates/June 2020 that RD is only for biographies, not "Killing of ..." pages. This might be an WP:IAR case, but it doesn't seem established yet. —Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At least for others, I don't recall posting the deceased as an RD. Relevant nominations include the In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021, In_the_news/Candidates/January_2023, as well as In_the_news/Candidates/September_2021 that I can find from recently, not sure if there are others we have posted though.  Spencer T• C 05:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two weren't even nominated as RDs, rather Ongoing and Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled per above. There appears to be a fairly strong community consensus based on precedent against posting crime victims to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * claimed in the other nomination (in Feb 13) that there was precedence/consensus for this from some RFC. Pinging for their input here. M asem (t) 16:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a formal RfC, but a series of local discussions at Deaths in 20xx. The monthly nature of those pages makes finding shit in the archives a hassle, but I'll see what I can do. In the meanwhile,, or  may remember it better. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure was there for it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how this rule came to be, you can all see it's in effect at Deaths in 2023. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And yeah, at the first nomination, there was pretty much nothing biographical. Now there's a little bit. Not a lot, but I've seen shorter articles pass. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'm not sure the first three regulars got my ping. I forgot to sign, initially. I'm so unsure that I'll refuse to ping them again. It's not like it'd be enough to Repost this Pull where it belongs in time, anyway. I encourage anyone interested in why or how RD's parent article does what it does to start their own investigation(s) at Talk:Deaths in 2023 (they're good people and it's strange how little we overlap). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am understandably frustrated that this has been pulled, though (for all the good it will do) I would question if perhaps this should have been moved to February 12 instead of February 11. While the killing took place on the 11th, the first stories to break it were published on the 12th. There's an RD above on Ted von Nukem, who died on 30 January, but the story wasn't broken until 15 February, so it's not like there isn't precedent for this to be listed under 12 February. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Young woman dies, decent article, subject matter notwithstanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article looks good, this is ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD. If we think an article on one's death is worthy of creation (and I will acknowledge I was a "draftify" vote before, but the article has vastly improved since that point in time) and the quality is sufficient to normal RD levels, than that person should be eligible for RD. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD per above. This girl was killed, Her death was notable. This is what RD is for. Arguing that for some reason we shouldn't be allowed to post articles about people that fall under WP:BIO1E is outside the spirit of ITN and the RD section and actively hurts the encyclopedia by not featuring a notable death. Regards So  Why  20:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a notable death & the quality’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD There is clearly consensus to post this as RD and the overall quality of the article is sufficient. Courtesy ping to original posting admin . Perhaps posting of non-bio articles at RD such as this is worth additional discussion at WT:ITN if there are additional concerns, but doesn't necessarily seem so at least at this nom, and the nomination will roll off the page in a few hours. Best,  Spencer T• C 03:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erwan Kurtubi

 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Two Rivers

 * Photo RD Old wrestler dies, sure, but also a 20-year career as a Mohawk political "force of nature" during some of their most high-profile and transformative years. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks like it is in order and well sourced. Looks ready to go on my end! Ornithoptera (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Photo RD The article is very well-cited and holistic. For goodness sake, it's been ages since we put up a Photo RD; this seems like an obvious contentor for one. Curbon7 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is ok, well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dammit, one more Photo RD vote and we'd have had this one. Oh well. Always next time! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s no such thing as a photo RD, they get shot down and reverted on the couple of times it’s been tried. Stephen 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Greta Andersen

 * Comment There is a big gap of content between 1969 and 2023 (54 years!). Is there anything that can be added? Curbon7 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply By going through available sources, I added a few things (instruction career until 1980 and beyond, and an ISHOF honor from 2015). As sportsperson, her major achievements obviously was in her younger days. Oceanh (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough. Good work! Curbon7 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ted Lerner

 * Support Career section is a bit short all things considered, but it is sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Jude Jolicoeur

 * Support. I think he's definitely notable enough to deserve a mention, and honestly, I can't believe his page was this skeletal until now... In fact, I've just added some more useful details and sources all across the article, although there might still be work to get done, especially for the "Biography" section. Oltrepier (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This article could certainly use some expansion, but I just added two references that took care of the two cite tags and maintenance templates in the article and it's fully sourced as it stands now. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Appears to be in a fine state, despite being a little short. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, folks I just read an encyclopedia entry which is heavily weighted towards his death, as if to suggest that we're saying he's notable for dying instead of notable for a music career, and which says ZERO about his life or career between 1991 and 2017. Considering the volume of traffic which comes through the main page, just who do you think you're fooling by saying this is worthy of a link simply because it happens to be formatted a certain way and happens to have citations neatly in place, no doubt the result of a moment-in-time Google search?  Truly, the emperor wears no clothes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have an emperor with no clothes than a skeletal music bio; good job, Oltrepier and Strange! As for you, KAOS, fill it up if you can. Posting is not the end of our collective responsibility for history. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk Thank you! I've seen your message just now. : D
 * To be fair, the pages for all of the three members of De La Soul genuinely deserve to be in a better state: I hope I'll have time to help improve them, especially as a fan of the group... Oltrepier (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've heard the name before, so will listen to whatever Spotify deems their secondmost popular album tonight; if it moves me, I may be inspired to delve into the backstories behind the music, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Election in Cyprus

 * Support Quality looks good enough. The Kip (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Campaign section is currently just a wall of text, can this be split up? Curbon7 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done like dinner. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article ticks all the boxes for me. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   20:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine to me.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article checks out! Ornithoptera (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Worse articles, I mean. Oppose changing the picture yet. Give the MVP till Monday night, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article quality is sufficient, and this is presumed notable per WP:INTR. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I am missing some aftermath/reaction, when fixed, this will be good to go. --Tone 08:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support good shape, ready to be posted Vriend1917 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment there is an unreferenced section (orange level tag) which needs to be addressed before posting, and the text in the 'results' section is simply a copy-paste of the lead. I'd like to see some non-duplicated prose there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No orange tags remain. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready article is seems all good now. - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support The election article isn't good, but seems just satisfactory for our purposes. Everything is cited, and the coverage of the election is at least partly in-depth. Curbon7 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready at all A section on aftermath or reactions is still missing. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what is often believed here, an aftermath section is not required; this is especially considering this is a presidential election, not a parliamentary one wherein coalition government formations are the primary focus of an aftermath section. Curbon7 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is not required, but recommended. While in a presidential election there is not much to say about the aftermath, it can always be added the reactions of the defeated candidates (if they congratulate the winner, if they don't recognize the results, what they say to their militants and voters, their predisposition to cooperate...this kind of typical political stuff) or of other international leaders. "More" is not always "worse". _-_Alsor (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 04:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Another UFO shot down

 * Strong oppose new blurb because this is like daily news now and therefore not significant, but neutral on updating the existing blurb as these are somewhat related, although I'm not sure whether or not RS are making the connection. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 09:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty terrible argument. You don't get to personally ordain that it is "not significant" just because there have been multiple incidents. It is literally in international news headlines. Master of Time   ( talk ) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This "pretty terrible argument" of not significant seems to be supported by the below consensus. And no, it isn't in the headlines internationally, at least not in the part of the world I live in. (Not that I require global significance or coverage to post, but I'm just replying to your point.) The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Blip For completeness we should also mention the 2023 Montana radar incident but that just seems to have been a blip. On the other hand, there's the saying: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lasers Dr. Evil isn't happy until his plot involves a "LASER". And the news obliges with Mysterious green lasers over Hawaii.  And a volcano is involved too!  Don't look up! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per above but could possibly get behind moving to ongoing if a collective article for these events were created.  Crusader 1096  (message) 14:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Seriously, en.wiki is not a newspaper and there's zero indication these events are important on their own or if there's even a pattern. This is stuff for Wikinews, not here. --M asem (t) 14:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is currently leading with 2023 Monegasque general election. That's of so little importance that only 443 people read the article yesterday.  That's not 443 thousand; it's just 443.  The UFO shootdowns are more important because, as shooting incidents, they are a significant escalation in the hostility between the superpowers. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Elections of any nation are valid for ITN per ITNR, with this it's not even confirmed that the balloon is Chinese, so it's a bit rash to make that assumption. Even China claimed to have shot down a UFO. I say this isn't significant enough yet, unless/until more information comes out that warrants its significance. Rockin (Talk) 17:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, the election, despite its irregularities, is ITNR. That’s just how it is, regardless of size of the country.
 * Second, WP:CRYSTAL applies here. The Kip (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not care about viewership numbers. We are not like a newspaper that need to drive views to remain financially viable. ITN is more concerned with presenting a broad cross section of topics that happen to be in the news, which nearly every national-level general election is considered to be. M asem (t) 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a certain irony in him claiming the Monegasque elections shouldn't be posted due to low viewership of the article, while also arguing the Super Bowl is of little significance. The Kip (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who gives a heck about Monaco and their stupid elections! I mean, c'mon man, it's absurd to compete these two incidents. Monaco's selections aren't sexy front-page news, but they are well more important. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose see above reasoning, this is more suited for Wikinews Ludicrous (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Highly doubtful that either of these most recent incidents ring the WP:GNG/EVENT bell. Both should probably be merged with the main Chinese balloon article. Alternatively, if they cannot be definitievly linked to China and nothing further emerges that gives them a stronger claim to notability, they should be sent to AfD and deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Until we have identity of what was shot down, a merge would need to be really careful to point out that these were events closely related in time but nothing else, and not imply they were part of the Chinese balloon shoot down. M asem (t) 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, I would hold off on any action with either page until we know a bit more. But what we have right now, doesn't establish encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose new blurb per my above comment. Rockin (Talk) 17:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. No established significance beyond simply being literal UFOs. The Kip (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Here's what the pilots said on CNN which tends to confirm that these were not all balloons. Meanwhile, there's continuing activity on Wikipedia and we have a compilation now: List of high-altitude object events in 2023.  Seven entries and counting... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see exactly how this is front-page notable - with their identity as potential foreign surveillance objects not confirmed, for the moment it's just the same UFO sighting incidents of the last 50 years, but with an added shootdown. The Kip (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's front page news on every major site: Al Jazeera; BBC; CBC; DW; NYT; you name it. What I'm not seeing on any of those pages is any mention of the Monaco election.  ITN is in a bubble of its own. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a good thing we aren’t a pure news site, then.
 * There’s been plenty of front-page stories we haven’t covered here (quite a lot of sports news, for example) for one reason or another, because we run on different rules. The Kip (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not care about how many sources cover a topic, only that it is covered. ITN is not guided by frequency, popularity or readership, as to fight against systematic media bias. M asem (t) 23:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should mention the country/countries in which these events took place, in order for the item to be accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurb is written in passive voice and omits important pieces of information, such as who shot the "UFOs" and why the "UFOs" were shot. Chrisclear (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:PASSIVE which explains that "The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, the unnamed party who shot down the "UFOs" is both notable and relevant. The current proposed blurb is an incredibly vague sentence which fails to identify the shooter(s), and provides a half-hearted description of the location of these events. Chrisclear (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Without an explanation of who or why the "UFOs" were shot, it's hard to see the significance of this item. Chrisclear (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update There's been another shoot-down over Lake Huron today. This one was octagonal!  Curiouser and curiouser... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean this in the politest possible terms, you don't need to post an update every few hours. The Kip (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altering existing blurb to note that 3 other floating objects have been shot down in the following days. I see no need for a further blurb. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Request Denied This would make them seem too Chinese. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Best to keep mysteries like these vague until the smoking gun stuff is leaked, dripped or declassified. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought that it goes without saying, that the blurb would have to be written in a way to not imply that the new balloons are Chinese. Nfitz (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It can't be, though. Even if we debolded, unlinked or euphemized the Chinese balloon part, it's been up there for over a week. People have associated it and most can't so suddenly forget. Just by putting them together, you're putting them together. Since the three less identified objects have less identity, they'll naturally be tainted by the relatively characterized fourth, instead of spreading their lack of distinction. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Inference is up to the reader. Though given that officials in Washington and the Prime Minister of Canada are saying that the second two are also balloons, and may be linked to the first, then I don't see the harm in providing simply the information. The origin of the 4th is less clear - as is the method of flight. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL, no confirmation anything but the balloon is Chinese. The Kip (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is the story here? Seriously? What's the significance of this? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Matters of national security, sir, I'm going to have to ask you to mind yer language. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These incidents obviously indicate an escalation in the level of tension between China, Russia and the USA. What seems to be happening is that NORAD was stung by the accusations of weakness in handling the first balloon.  They have cranked up the sensitivity of their radars and are shooting down anything that moves in an "abundance of caution" – i.e. they are now trigger-happy.  This is a dangerous state for nuclear superpowers as there have been many cases in the past where war was avoided only by keeping cool – see the list of nuclear close calls.
 * Now ITN clearly has a low bar for significance as, after the Monaco election, it's now leading with the Superbowl – an ephemeral entertainment with zero long-term significance. It made no difference to the world which team won last night but ITN has rushed to announce the result regardless.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the Super Bowl is a massive event as well as on ITNR, while the Monegasque elections are those of a sovereign state just like any other that we always post as per ITNR. Also, the idea that this is “clearly evident” of heightened tensions is a massive instance of WP:CRYSTAL when we still don’t even know what the UFOs were, let alone where they came from.
 * We get that you disagree with ITNR guidelines regarding elections and based on past behavior, especially sports - doesn’t make this any more notable. I’d love to hear how this, which is still thin on details besides “the US/Canada shot something down” has any more long-term significance than any of the events posted by consensus. The Kip (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The rise in tension is clearly evident from reports such as Tensions Rise.... Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Times have no proof the UFOs are Chinese, it's not our job to associate them. Sometimes the media makes mountains out of molehills. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note I know votes =/= consensus, but worth noting to any viewing admins that it's currently at nine opposes + WaltCip's what I believe to be an oppose, with no supports outside the nom; may be best to close. The Kip (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It's not every weekend that three UFOs are (publicly) shot down, but I'll admit, it could happen again next weekend. Or tomorrow. Or while I'm voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait to see how all of the merges play out. This might tie into the Chinese balloon incident, in which case, I don't know what's supposed to happen. Could even be ongoing, I suppose. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Bloomberg reports: US Hasn’t Ruled Out Alien Origins for Latest Objects Shot Down. Count Iblis (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's an ET, then I'd rather get a reliable source that says so instead of peddling the sort of clickbait nonsense that The History Channel forcefeeds its viewers nowadays. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb. I have proposed Alt Blurb II for consideration. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That blurb us far too much in SYNTH territory to be used. M asem (t) 14:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how it's WP:SYNTH - multiple RSs have quoted pentagon officials stating that after the Chinese spy balloon, they recalibrated their radar to more easily detect that type of threat, which is why these other objects were detected. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb doesn't say a thing about recalibration, though, only suspicion of Chinese espionage. That's not so much a problem with the glaringly suspicious Chinese one. But it carries through to the "wake", and that's uncool. FYI, the radar was fixed (by NORAD, not the Pentagon) to pick up smaller objects than it previously had. Not "that type of threat". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We blurbed the Chinese balloon but these subsequent objects have yet to be connected to that, and seem less significant. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - could we possibly bump/update the blurb to "Four/Several man-made high altitude objects are shot down over North American airspace."? The initial incident I feel was a tempest in a teapot, but the reoccuring nature of these is both in the news, and an uncommon occurrence even if they end up being some university/civilian experiment. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose' A curiosity. Not for the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Odd Eriksen

 * Support Well-cited. A little short (obvious area of expansion would be what he did during his ministerial tenure), but it seems just holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Political career information largely a resume in prose format, without information regarding what he did in those roles.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Deniz Baykal

 * Oppose Yikes. Multiple unsourced paragraphs.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Understatement of the century lol. Curbon7 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howard Bragman

 * Almost there Prose seems holistic enough, but there are several one or two sentence paras that should be condensed. There is also one CN tag . Curbon7 (talk)
 * It seems that all the issued were addressed by .-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Only partly. Curbon7 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: O Kuk-ryol

 * Comment: Needs some restructuring: info in lede not mentioned elsewhere (e.g. superdollar involvement) should be moved to the body section. Otherwise this is pretty close, given the relative paucity of information coming from North Korea.  Spencer T• C 22:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Issues have been addressed. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 06:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough, considering the country in question. Curbon7 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Robert Hébras

 * Not yet ready Sadly, the article is still a stub. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Ohio train derailment

 * This happened last week and the media did a terrible job covering it, but regardless now the blurb should be on the current parts of the story. M asem (t) 21:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Minus the arrests and lawsuits, unless we're breaking with that tradition of waiting for trials to finish. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a hydrogen tanker that exploded near Columbus and melted the traffic lights on U.S. 23 a week or two ago. Don't really see how this is any more notable. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Doctors are generally cool with us ingesting hydrogen, less so with those toxic gases. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per @Black Kite, @Evan224, and @AirshipJungleman29's arguments in the Lebron James nomination that 30 thousand people dying in the earthquake in Turkey and Syria means that ITN can never be updated again.
 * On a serious note, support. Notable, undercovered story that can have serious implications (e.g, potential acid rain from all the excess acid in the air caused by this incident). The media has done a horrendous job of covering this story.  Crusader 1096  (message) 00:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is an environmental disaster whose effects can last for weeks or months that a death from these impacts is possible during that time - especially when compared to Thathri land subsidence. To be noted, reports of animal deaths are already circulating. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realized that this is stale and not a notable disaster. Oppose MarioJump83 (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nomination is stale This occurred on February 3rd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once again, this doesn’t seem notable enough to post. Also, it seems stale. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As it's stale (feb 3rd) Redoct87 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Modrow

 * • Support major historic figure, subject to some small issues being fixed, but overall good. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I cannot see anything substantiated in the article that credits him regarding reunification - actions are described but not impact. Article is on the short side for someone to be seen as a great or transformative figure. --M asem (t) 14:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Well sourced, prose ok, size ok, Grimes2 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies The lead gives him a suspended sentence while the body says probation. The lead also attributes this sentence to a later conviction, unlike the body. Once that's clear, Photo RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD Did not leave major impacts. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has a couple CN tags. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Fixed the last CN tag that was needed. Article is well-cited and holistic. The NYT article on his death came out yesterday (gift), so editors may like to add further if they wish. Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Update Deleted Blurb nom due to low notability, should still be ready for RD though. CDE34RFV (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of citations needed. Stephen 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * CN tags filled, could be Ready for post now. CDE34RFV (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support RD  Last of an era for Soviet Era East Germany (Before free elections were held in East Germany, the leader following Modrow was elected, then German reunification happened), semi big player on the unifications beginnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorriynial (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RD posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed as duplicate; see below) Collapse of Moldova's government
support more notable than nz. Followed the protests and day after condemning the missile over head.45.112.200.3 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Duplicate of New PM in Moldova. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UFO shot down

 * Wait I'd rather not post a clickbait UFO headline on ITN, especially when we could find out what that object is within the next 24 hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should mention the country in which this event took place, in order for the item to be accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How many percent don't know what Alaska is? If it said the leader of Eswatini is elected a bigger percent of readers won't know where that is, is that okay because it's a country? London, Barcelona, Portland and Portland are not countries, do we have to say Xxxgyxxx spaceships land in London, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, EU, Europe, Portland, Maine, United States, North America and Portland, Oregon, United States, North America in case someone doesn't know where those countries and semi-countrylike entity are? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurb is written in passive voice and omits important pieces of information, such as who shot the "UFO" and why the "UFO" was shot. Chrisclear (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait As said by @NorthernFalcon, we should not use UFO, we definitely have to wait to see what the DOJ, or what Joe Biden will respond with. Vriend1917 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - article is a stub and subject is unlikely to meet on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree about the questionable notability. I will propose a merge to the 2023 Chinese balloon incident if it doesn't become clearly notable on its own. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per @NorthernFalcon and @Chrisclear There simply isn't enough information out to make a decision if this is newsworthy. Aure entuluva (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Let's be real, either it's another stupid balloon (aka nothingburger story) or the government won't give us any information anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - per above  Crusader 1096  (message) 02:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait we do not know much information about the incident, so until we get more information, we'll have to wait.  TomMasterReal  TALK 02:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. We do not have much information on about this incident, or what the flying object is, and the article's a stub and needs time to expand once the information is available, as there are only 4 references as of this vote, and 3 paragraphs. I'll support once this is expanded and more information is accessible as time goes. Tails   Wx  02:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, on the off chance that it was Santa's sleigh or an actual UFO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's wait the NORAD Tracks Santa official announcement before posting. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub with notability in reasonable doubt. If this turns into something we can revisit the matter, but for now this reminds me of an old commercial from the land of long ago..."where's the beef?" -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only means this could be something more significant is 1) that the object is confirmed to be another Chinese balloon, 2) the balloons collectively are part of a spy network and 3) that this causes irreputable hard to US/China diplomatic relations. That's unlikely to be known within the week. --M asem (t) 03:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where’s the beef? I don't see an encyclopedia entry. I see a bunch of puffery built around a headline.  I thought we're supposed to reflect enduring notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If it's China at it again, then we already have a blurb on that. If it isn't, then I don't see where the significance of this lies. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, or maybe update the old blurb. Maybe this was the first salvo in our war against the extraterrestrials, since this 'is' technically a UFO. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, based on news articles I've found, there is still not much information on the topic. If it happens to be aliens or something then it will definitely be notable haha. - az pineapple  &#124;  talk  06:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now Article is too short and is still marked as a stub. However, if more significant developments about this event would come into light in the coming hours and days, I might change my vote. Vida0007 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * • Wait per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge it with the balloons for context, if it comes to something.45.112.200.3 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Right now there's simply a flurry of superstition and too little information. I don't think the article is very useful to prospective readers. Ludicrous (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My Balloons! Why didn't anyone tell me he had one of those...things? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not a good story for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sergey Tereshchenko

 * Oppose First paragraph in career section has no citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: René-Samuel Sirat

 * Oppose Early Life and Family section has no citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , Fixed. Can you take another look? Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 05:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Marguerite Jauzelon

 * Oppose As mentioned, it is under-referenced. First paragraph has no citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: AKA (rapper)

 * Not yet ready Prose is satisfactory, but the Awards and nominations section is almost entirely unreferenced. Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

New PM in Moldova

 * Not support yet appointed or nominated? Also, article needs a picture. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dorin's article says "nominated to become Prime Minister of Moldova", so I think that's probably the right choice here. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A picture, though preferred, is not a requirement for ITN posting. Curbon7 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Altblurb 1 Article of Dorin seems fine to me. And since generally leadership changes are posted, I can't see any reason not to post this one. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or alt2 if we're going to be consistent with how we snubbed Jacinda Ardern last month. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My six sides are confused - The article's lead section says nominated, but the Career section says appointed. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a difference between appointed and nominated? - az pineapple  &#124;  talk  06:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Appointed means he will be PM. Nominated means that some people (probably his party) want him to be PM. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 07:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, in that case support alt2 or blurb because he is the PM-designate . Cheers - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 14:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC) (also i copied ur signature thingy i think it is very cool)
 * Comment A change of PM is a type of story that we usually post. I am still missing some more substantial updates. The best article at the moment on the topic seems to be Gavrilița Cabinet, but still needs updates. Recean's article has one-sentence update. --Tone 17:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is very obvious and shouldn't be snubbed. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So it seems that Recean is now set to be PM, so that would be signifcant enough to post (as ITN/R), but the proposed target needs significant work. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 – ArionEstar (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bolded article is wholly inadequate for the main page. There's literally nothing in there about the last 8.5 years of his life, between November 2014 and when he was selected as the new PM.  There's also almost nothing in the article about the context for how he was selected as the PM.  This could be posted if all of those people above supporting actually worked on making the article good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not support yet The article should be improved. -- M h hossein   talk 05:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. The bolded article doesn't tell us anything about the appointment other than it happened.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Amjad Islam Amjad

 * Not ready significant sourcing issues, lots of unsourced content. Tails   Wx  14:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know where I would even possibly begin trying to source this one. The prose is also practically nonexistant. It will take a true Herculean effort to get this ready within 3 days. Curbon7 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean-Maurice Dehousse

 * Oppose Just about ok lengthwise, but needs more citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcos Alonso

 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. The lede could use some work, but it is sufficient for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Burt Bacharach

 * Weak oppose The article is really quite good, and its almost there, but there's some minor referencing work that needs to be handled; the "film and television" section is mostly unreferenced, and one vital cn tag in the personal life section. If those get fixed, this would be good to go for the main page.  No need to ping me to change my vote, if those items are fixed, consider this a full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issues have been fixed. The reason why I'm pinging you is to see if your support is directed towards RD only, a blurb, or either or? 38.106.246.200 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RD only. There's nothing else to say than that he died.  RD conveys that fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

'''Support RD, Weak Oppose current Blurb right now. (While the Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head)''' Likely though, it will need editing. But his music writing career, writing #1 hits for Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass, The Carpenters, The four artists on That's What Friends Are For, Christopher Cross, B.J. Thomas, and not to mention writing most of Dionne Warwick's most popular songs, a big hit for Tom Jones (singer), and many more makes this an easy support for legacy. Blurb should probably include Grammy Wins, and or big hits he wrote. Maybe a Alt blurb, something like "American songwriter and Bacharach Sound creator, Burt Bacharach dies at the age of 94." TheCorriynial (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Legacy doesn't matter here, because every person (or even animal for that matter) with an article is important enough to post, as the template states. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe blurb is meant by the author? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Will strike, but I'm pretty sure there was no blurb proposal when I made this comment. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support subject to issues being fixed, but isn't Bacharach noteworthy enough for a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So you support the idea of him having a blurb in general, but your opposition is towards the proposed blurb listed. 38.106.246.200 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

https://variety.com/2023/music/obituaries-people-news/burt-bacharach-dead-american-music-1235517943/.Kirill C1 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Has won three Oscars, numerous Grammys, his songs have been recorded by over 1,000 artists (per his article), the Musical style section demonstrates the impact he had on music (Bacharach Sound), and one of the most influential composers of pop music in the 20th century. Definitely influential in his field. --38.106.246.200 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * sigh
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." The Kip (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * People are already voting on a blurb, so I've changed the template to make that clear. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this user is justifying why he merits a blurb not just an RD tag in general. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb Article's sourcing issues are fixed and I could get behind supporting a blurb because of the impact he had on pop music in the previous century. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies He had an impact on pop in the previous century, last week and now that he's dead. This event changes nothing beyond personal life. There's no story, just an obituary, and a Photo RD is a more fitting fan nod. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb. Not quite as transformative as most individuals who we would blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD. On the level of quality, the article seems ready to post. All living people with articles who die are eligible for RD from a notability perspective, so I think posting this at RD is more than acceptable. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Death has received decent coverage. Influence on 20th century music I would say is probably to support RD. Oppose blurb only because I can't find much he was notable for other than music. Betty White, for example was an advocate for several causes apart from her acting career, and of course she was a major name in the entertainment industry for seven decades.--Estar8806 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bacharach industrially exploded 771 months ago, so he's only about five years short (and still across eight decades). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb I feel he's "famous" and certainly has a lot of famous works associated with him, but fame is not the same as being a major or transformative figure (eg we're in Carrie Fisher territory here). That said, there's some elements in the article that hint towards that and if his impact was better spelled out, I'd likely be willing to support. --M asem (t) 01:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for RD Referencing as usual. In particular the discography sections need work. Neutral on blurb. But the article is not ready for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb "Old man dies of old age." His article will tell what he's famous for. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Picture The subject's name is already distinctive and well-recognised and the proposed blurb text adds no value. The key difference is using the picture which we should do as we have one.  We should use RD pictures more often to keep the ITN section looking fresh every day.  A picture is worth a thousand words. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added the "ready" tag, as it appears this has the support and quality to go to the main page. If an admin (not me, I am involved) could take care of that, that'd be awesome.  Thanks in advance!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure if ready There are still a couple of CN tags in the prose, but this isn't that big a deal. More pressingly is that around half of the Honors and awards appears to be unsourced, including some major (RE: contentious) awards, and nearly the entire Discography is unsourced. Regardless, per Andrew above, this seems like an obvious candidate to use Photo RD for, which we haven't done in a while. Curbon7 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready per Curbon7, especially with the sparse sourcing for the Discography section. I would suggest looking to his discography article to remedy this issue.  Aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Article's in good shape for an RD; however, not quite as transformative/universally known as our traditional death blurb standards, nor did he die young/unusually. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb. "a dominant force in American popular music for half a century",see variety
 * Comment - He was transformative in the musical world, but not transformative enough. He had a legacy, but not enough of a legacy. He won awards, but not enough awards. Once again, the transient and vacillating nature of the "major figures" criterion plagues our process.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "He won awards, but not enough awards".He won three Academy Awards,2 Golden Globes, BAFTA, six Grammy Awards(and Lifetime Achievement Award), and one Emmy Award. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my point. That's not enough. For whatever reason, ITN has collectively decided that isn't enough to establish that someone is a major figure. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb based on my very subjective "never heard of him" standard.  Sandstein   11:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You must have heard Magic Moments. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above
 * Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Is there a better-known, or more important, popular music songwriter in the English-speaking world (not including figures also well-known as performers)? Bacharachwas absolutely transformative. He created a unique style of popular music that became much imitated and he composed a lot of songs that are incredibly well-known in the English-speaking world, songs that have united performers in rock, soul, R&B, country, jazz, easy listening, punk, disco, funk, Latin, garage rock, any major pop genre you can think of. Nat King Cole recorded a Bacharach song in 1952, The Beatles did in 1963. Isaac Hayes and Carpenters were both cutting his songs in 1970. If we don't blurb Bacharach, are we just not interested in blurbing anyone best known as a songwriter for other performers? Humbledaisy (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD Transformative figure in his field (20th century Western pop music) and won a lot of awards, but his legacies, and in particular genres of Chamber pop and Shibuya-kei, has been all but left out in 21st century as the zeitgeist and musical styles keep changing. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb I feel like I may have used him as an example when suggesting which composers might warrant a blurb when a weaker suggestion was made in years past. Bacharach was unquestionably, truly, transformative in the field of pop music, over several decades. Why do I oppose, then? Because he was just one of the figures I thought of, and if it is busy at the top (Lloyd Webber, Williams, Vaughan Williams, Guthnadottir...), it is perhaps a field where no figure is so outstanding. If we'd have to blurb them all, it is better to blurb none and let RD show them. As an aside, I am leaning more and more to just RD'ing everyone, as was the intention when that line was introduced... Yes, ITN's primary purpose is to direct readers to articles we have when current news items prompt them to seek further, more comprehensive, information, and the life of a recently-deceased celebrity is certainly there. But all that needs is a name, no matter who it is, the story is the same - unless the death itself is a story, like e.g. Kobe, then it should be judged as any other news item. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "If we'd have to blurb them all, it is better to blurb none and let RD show them"it is better to blurb them all Kirill C1 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a rough consensus for RD-only, however, there are still referencing issues. Two or three cn-s in the main text I don't particularly mind, but the discography is completely unsourced and this is thus a no-go at the moment. --Tone 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment @Tone I should have added some more references yesterday.
 * Oltrepier (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography still unsourced... Tone 13:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Thathri Disaster 2023

 * Is this a request that this be placed as "ongoing", or that the event be covered as occurring on February 9? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing event as the geologists are yet to submit final report and effected families are still in rehabilitation centres, according to news. But I want a blurb.  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 07:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait Is there any updates on the disaster? I'm also looking forward to deaths and damages from the disaster. I'm also concerned with the title of the article. It should be 2023 Thathri disaster. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not looking forward to the deaths and damages from the disaster. They are expected to be terrible. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , the title suggestion is good. There are no reported deaths, as per news sources, all the people were evacuated safely when the minor cracks in the building started developing in the beginning. ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 07:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a very good news to hear. Hopefully everyone in Kashmir is safe. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have checked the article myself and it is good, but I have to apologize that the event itself was not that significant for blurb, as there were no deaths outside infrastructural collapses so far. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MJ83. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The blurb & nomination don't specify what type of 'disaster' this is. It turns out to be subsidence that has cracked several buildings, causing them to be evacuated, but no casualties. That's unfortunate for those affected, but I'm not convinced this is significant enough to even merit an article, let alone an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is effectively a slow moving earthquake, but giving the time for people to evacuate and/or make other preparations to minimize damage. Its in that "if a tree fell in a forest" category of news, that we should document it but its not ITN groundbreaking. --M asem (t) 13:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. What I'm reading in the sources I can find this in does not make it seem to me that this qualifies for ITN posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Fulton

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and very holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivan Silayev

 * Support, though the final prime minister of the USSR may well be deserving of a blurb. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD Quite well-cited and holistic. A few spots need a little work (a couple of Who tags, some extraneous info, and some pure red-links that should be inter-language links), but these are not relevant for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Some red-links remain but I have found no {cn} tags. This looks good to go. Vida0007 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK. Redlinks are fine, obviously. Curbon7 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Lotis

 * Comment One CN tag in the prose, and the Filmography section is entirely unreferenced. Curbon7 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've gone ahead and sourced the filmography and hid the one unsourced sentence. I think the article is just holistic enough, covering the major bits of his career. Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Igor Mangushev

 *  Weak Support Article is solidly sourced if a bit thin on length. But I believe it is adequate for RD, if barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article's been expanded a bit over 2X since your comment above. Is the length still an issue for you? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This article was just created today and might be notable mainly based on the circumstances of his death. Even the subject's native Russian language article was only started a few days ago. - Indefensible (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sourcing in the article covers both his pre-war activities (which were the subject of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in and of themselves), as well as his activities during the war. His death is what alerted me to his existence, but there's more to the article than just his death (his death is suspicious, but he's probably notable even prior to the coverage of his death in my view). — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of his prior notability seems to be due to founding a paramilitary company which itself just had its article created today, however most of the supporting refs are in Russian so I cannot assess them. Usually I do not comment on notability for RD but seems like a gray area here. - Indefensible (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded a good bit, and it now better details the individual's pre-war activities. Does this address your concerns? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, going to abstain on this article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've been mulling over this one for several days, but I think it is sufficient. The article is well-cited, and it seems holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Chile wildfires

 * Support upon removal of orange tags. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As there appear to be at least 26 deaths, that should be added to blurb and that would definitely make this a ITN item (barring article quality). --M asem (t) 13:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a bit short, but well referenced, and probably is still long enough to justify sending readers to it. Reliable sources are covering the story in a way that shows that people are likely to have heard about it.  Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded - At this point, there is not much about the wildfires themselves but about reactions and foreign aid. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks to be of sufficient quality. "Megadrought" is currently not used in the article, so either the blurb needs to change or the article needs to be expanded. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as Ongoing, Weak Oppose Blurb. The fires have already been ongoing for some time to the point where a regular blurb may be inappropriate for this item. Ideally we should have blurbed this already and then moved to Ongoing, but at this point I would argue just a direct move to Ongoing would be more appropriate. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that news sources are now heavily picking this up, and that the Turkey/Syria blurb will be ongoing if it falls off, I think just a normal blurb here us fine. M asem (t) 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it's fine. My concern really is where exactly this item falls on the list. Obviously this was nomed today, but the fires didn't just start. In theory this item could be more stale than the last blurb depending on where you think it should fall. I guess it's not an issue but I still think Ongoing is a better place for this item. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added an alt-blurb that I believe better focuses on the impacts of the event (still opposed to a blurb, but I would favor this one in the event this gets a blurb eventually). DarkSide830 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as Ongoing Like said by @DarkSide830, these have been going on for some time that where a blurb will probably be too little. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is still on the short side but adequately referenced, with no outstanding concerns to be addressed.  Schwede 66  21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing, If Anything Disasters like these are textbook news, but this is neither a beginning nor end, just this point in time. If blurbed later, the numbers will be higher, so blurbing now is objectively less [insert significant adjective]. I just hope somebody's prepared to keep it updated. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per above.  Crusader 1096  (message) 04:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, but remove the "megadrought" claim as it doesn't appear in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I got the megadrought aspect from the NASA report and they got it from the World Meteorological Organization. Other respectable sources use this term and it appears in the article too.  Anyway, whatever you call it, the point is that the drought is a big one – "the longest in at least 1,000 years" – and is relevant and significant too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm happy to support the original blurb (because the megadrought is mentioned in the article again) or the alt blurb. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, per above. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support altblurb. Wildfires in summer are a common occurrence, but this does seem more destructive than normal. The article is pretty basic, with half of the content being reaction statements, but does meet our minimum requirements. There does not appear to be any justification for saying 'megadrought' in the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. This is a pretty significant and destructive wildfire, I'd say that its pretty notable. - az pineapple  &#124;  talk  15:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as ongoing. Bedivere (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality There isn’t enough info about the fires in the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major environmental event with considerable death toll. ArionEstar (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Branka Veselinović

 * Support. I came to nominate. Serbian actress who died at age 104, having acted until her death apparently. Article was created and well sourced by sadly vanished Ashleyyoursmile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article, well referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article's organization is a little unorthodox, but not relevant for our purposes. What is relevant: the article is very well referenced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. Accidentally nominated this article twice, my bad. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ahmet Eyüp Türkaslan

 * Not yet ready Article is very short, to the point that the paragraph about his death is a near equal length to the rest of the prose combined. Curbon7 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Miroslav Blažević

 * Needs lots of referencing work, otherwise the article is detailed. --Tone 09:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Just a few moments earlier I overlooked this section and nominated Ćiro myself. That said, this is one of the most notable figures in modern Croatian sports; The Guardian article sums it up and the article speaks for itself. The article needs more references but is adequate as-is for RD section IMO. -Vipz (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The standards established by WP:ITNQUALITY require the article to be very well-referenced, which means entirely or almost entirely referenced with reliable sources; in this instance, significant chunks of the article are completely uncited. We do not assess for importance or notability for RD either; as the bottom of the yellow box states: "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Closer than it was earlier in the week, but still significant sourcing issues. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled) LeBron James sets scoring record

 * Very Slight Support as far as I can tell there hasn't been a precedent on these types of nominations. Cristiano breaking the goalscoring record wasn't posted but this is slightly different because we knew the true record. Anyways I think this is notable enough but I know that American sports are not as notable compared to the likes of real football and cricket so I am willing to change my mind on this. Jbvann05  05:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted Magnus Carlsen earning the highest chess rating ever, so there’s some precedence. The Kip (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support probably the biggest record in basketball, likely won't be broken for decades. Also, LeBron James is a GA, and it has been updated. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably snowball's chance in Heck this gets posted, but as NorthernFalcon notes, this is the biggest record in basketball. Also the NBA is the most prominent league of one of the most biggest sports in the world. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting hook and good opportunity to put a GA on the main page. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - notable basketball record, likely won't be broken for a while as @NorthernFalcon noted. Well written GA too. Also, you know that the folks who will be rushing to write oppose would happily slap Messi or Ronaldo's face on the main page with a lengthy blurb because "FoOtBaLl Is A dIfFeReNt BeAsT."  Crusader 1096  (message) 06:30, 8 February 2023
 * There IS a fundamental difference. Soccer is international. The NBA isn't. Significantly, this is the case for several sports Americans believe are more important than most international sports. This isn't necessarily an oppose vote from me. Just an observation of the problem facing us here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While basketball isn't as popular as soccer, it has intl. popularity. In addition to the US, it's also popular in Europe & China. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep saying this? Whether it is internationally popular is irrelevant. "Please do not Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep saying things that DON'T relate to what they're complaining about?????? I didn't oppose the nomination. I was simply describing the difficulty of evaluating this achievement in comparison to ITN level achievements outside the USA. A huge pile-on of Americans saying "This is great" is never going to convince non-Americans. Would Americans accept a record goal scoring achievement in Australian Football as ITN worthy? I'm really asking if there is any way of objectively evaluating an achievement like this? Or do we simply accept what a lot of excited Americans say? HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not sure what else can be said about this nom. This is, unequivocally the most important record in the most imporyant league in one of the most globally prominent sports. You can disagree that it's notable, but what else CAN be said here? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I DID NOT DISAGREE THAT IT IS NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment was regarding the lack of a compelling argument that may appeal to the non-American editor. That is what I said before and my point is if that doesn't do it than you simply must not want this posted (I mean to be using "you" in a general rather than pointed sense). DarkSide830 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Australian football doesn't have such a record – however, I would, of course, support a soccer equivalent. DecafPotato (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IN AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL THEY KICK GOALS, SO OF COURSE IT HAS SUCH A RECORD!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I WOULDN'T MIND THAT RECORD!!!!!! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We've had NBA stars and superstars from Argentina, Cameroon, Canada, China, Congo (Kinshasa not Brazzaville), Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Nigeria, Serbia, Slovenia and Spain who generally had no connection to USA till they were strong enough to play in the NBA or almost. So many of the NBA stars are from overseas right now that we could we might not even be in the '24 Olympic final. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support That’s a very big record! -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhmm… Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that there was an unwritten custom of not including (or not supporting) sports records. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether that exists or not (first I've heard of it) it's consensus on a case-by-case basis that matters. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is an outstanding achievement comparable to Magnus Carlsen's record-breaking FIDE chess rating, which we posted ten years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've proposed an alternative blurb by linking to the List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders and removing the record-breaking point (his tally is now up to 38,390, so the 38,388th point may be misleading).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support LeBron broke an important record that's stood for decades in a major sport. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – It is only a single-sentence update to the article, which doesn't seem enough to me for a feature. It being a lovely GA does balance it out well, tho. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a few more sentences. Is that enough to get your support? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral – This is definitely better and more acceptable for the front page. The shortness of the update still doesn't excite me, but I have no problems with this having been posted. Thank you for your work, Blaylockjam :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are hundreds of books full of such stuff: Basketball Super Stats; Slam Dunk! Basketball Facts and Stats; The Best Book of Basketball Facts & Stats; Big-Time Basketball Records; The Greatest Basketball Records; Amazing Basketball Records and many more. There will always be someone in every national league for every sport who has scored the most points and so this record doesn't seem especially significant.  As there has not been a significant update, policy WP:NOTSTATS applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Daily reminder for all that this user’s previously stated his complete opposition to any sports stories in ITNR, so this vote can be taken with a grain of salt. The Kip (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How incredibly rude. It is possible to disagree with someone without demeaning them. Curbon7 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NOTSTATS applies to this? I don't see how an ITN blurb is falls within Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. The blurb only mentions one stat and it's explained in context.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy page is not well-written but the overall idea is to keep Wikipedia looking like an encyclopedia, and not turning into another type of work such as a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS), gossip column (WP:NOTGOSSIP) or statsbook (WP:NOTSTATS). For example, "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Records get broken all the time, and I believe we have not previously posted cumulative records in any sport. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This Magnus Carlsen achievement was posted. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen something like this nominated & this record had stood for decades, so I don’t think “Records get broken all the time” is a compelling argument for this record.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have posted individuals breaking athletics world records, such as the marathon. I don't really see much difference. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being oblivious, but this sounds very umm... miscellaneous. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is one sport out of very many sports, and I am not sure how significant this record is even within Basketball. The phrasing sure makes it sound like there are many other records (e.g. "most wins in a season") that would be comparable. Banedon (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wins are not personal stats in basketball. In the case of many other sports, no one statistic really is king, but the personal scoring record really stands above all other personal stats in basketball. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia isnt the Guiness book of World Records, and I fail to see how this is that significant in the long run.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   11:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The significance is that it’s breaking a 40-year old record, previously thought to be unbreakable, in one of the world’s most popular sports (arguably second only to football/soccer). This isn’t something that happens every season, nor is it some more obscure sport with little global coverage. The Kip (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support Accelerate! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I didn't think sports records like this should be made WP:ITN. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   11:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, our purpose here is to highlight quality updates. Career accumulation records are a poor fit for this, as only a negligible update would (and should) be made in the article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think our purpose here is to highlight quality articles with updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't. The criteria repeated uses the word "substantial" and even quantifies this at a certain point. Significance is relevant, but improving the encyclopedia is always job one.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would eliminate the possibility of ever posting to ITN a GA with 75kb prose like this one, because the update of a few sentences is so small compared to the rest of the existing quality article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The size of the article is immaterial, but yes; an update of a few sentences would per se not qualify for ITN, no matter how good the existing article is. This is not a bug. Also, this is the substance of my initial vote, and needn't trigger a back and forth just because you disagree.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Individual records are always being set; this one is important, but I don't think that records of this nature are good fodder for ITN-type stories. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Events like this one are more suitable for DYK than ITN in my opinion. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of the "toss to DYK" argument, but I understand your point. Curbon7 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are records that will continually be broken. --M asem (t) 13:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * • Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When, in another 40 years? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This record was considered unbreakable and had stood for nearly 40 years, it’s downright absurd to use the “they’re always broken” argument for this. The Kip (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Football is a different beast. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There it is. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip Read my !vote, please and thanks. :] Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose sporting trivia. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/08/lebron-james-tribute-scoring-record-kareem-abdul-jabbar
 * https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/sport/lebron-james-nba-record-analysis-spt-intl/index.html Kirill C1 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Trivial. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This would get posted if it was soccer, of course. The Kip (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It shouldn’t. Neither. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose – I think it could be posted, but it's only a one-sentence update in LeBron's article. DecafPotato (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a few more sentences. Is that enough to get your support? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think so – changing my vote to a support. DecafPotato (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sports trivia, not actual news.  Sandstein   16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All the actual news stories on it disagree with you, but okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC has posted multiple articles about it. Le Monde has it. I'm sure other international papers have covered it too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * El Pais and la Repubblica too. The Kip (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, Kareem's record stood ever since 1984, that is an almost 40 year old record being broken by Lebron. With basketball and the NBA gaining more and more popularity, we should nominate this article since this is something that millions of people care about. Kennyboy1999 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Probably the most important individual record in all of basketball, and this is absolutely in the news. Placing this in a blurb is utterly reasonable, and the article quality is high enough to warrant posting. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support At first, I would've opposed this, seeing as how I don't believe sports records should be posted, but that was, to be fair, looking through the lens of someone who doesn't often watch sports with the exception of motorsports, considering basketball's popularity and how this has had solid media coverage, I move to weak support. Many insurmountable records I feel have been broken, and none were blurbed, but this is different, because of it's coverage in media. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Just because it's a sports record doesn't mean it's trivia. This is a record that has stood for nearly 40 years, and it is receiving widespread coverage. The article is good quality and has been sufficiently updated. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support This is the kind of thing a traditional encyclopedia would mention. (In fact, Britannica Online already does. I'm looking at the library version, so I don't have a link.) Relative to major disasters, it's a trivial thing. But relative to other sports news, it's pretty significant - arguably more significant than the typical NBA Finals result. Zagal e jo (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Do you really want to put a sporting record, where it is clearly debatable whether it qualifies for ITN or not, above an event that has killed 12,000 people ... at least? Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to sound callous, but that’s not a concern for ITNR. The Super Bowl will be on there in mere days anyways, with the earthquake blurb likely still in it. The Kip (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Chronologically above, yes. Just like we put a damn floating robot over hundreds of dead and injured Muslims. Something relatively less tragic will have to "top" this soon enough, may as well be LeBron. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Sports trivia? Really? Is that what we're posting on Wikipedia's ITN now? I also like how someone above me asked if we want to put a sporting record (that is clearly debatable whether it qualifies for ITN or not) right above an event that killed at least 12,000 people. Evan224 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to read some of the many comments above you, this is clearly quite a lot more than mere sports trivia. This is receiving wide coverage from even non-American RSes such as Le Monde, BBC, El Pais, la Repubblica, etc. The Kip (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support High quality article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support possibly not the most significant news at the moment (although admittedly I don't follow the sport and I live in a country where it doesn't have the same level of coverage as in the US), but it seems like an interesting achievement and more than mere trivia. It also gives an opportunity to get a high-quality article onto the Main Page and lets us include something positive to break up the constant procession of doom and gloom that seems to be all that is ever posted to ITN these days. 176.26.3.180 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trivial, even if it is being covered by the news, not really worth mentioning as I can't really see it being news in general. Not blurbworthy in my opinion. Per Evan224. --2601:249:8E00:420:8C27:A3EB:37C:DB6 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you “can’t see it being news in general,” it literally is as demonstrated by multiple RSes above, including those from abroad. The Kip (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Records get broken all the time and per GreatCaesarsGhost. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This record stood for roughly 40 years, but certainly, records just break all the time. Also, quoting below, it’s the special significance; storms, shootings, and elections all happen routinely too, but significance is used to determine whether to post them. The Kip (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. records get broken a lot.  TomMasterReal  TALK 01:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and storms and shootings also happen a lot. But, like with those occurrences, when one of them does get posted, it's those that are significant. And it seems fairly obvious (to me) that this is a significant record that does not get broken a lot. DecafPotato (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The only record that's relevant is this one, that we are discussing now, and it had stood for nearly 40 years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I was on the fence, but I'm firmly in the "post it" camp because 1) this is a record that stood for 40 years and will likely not be challenged for a very long time; 2) this is the biggest individual record in an incredibly popular league/sport; and 3) it has most certainly attained exceptional news coverage, and not just from sports publications. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is a GA and the record is a significant one, having stood for 40 years and god knows the next time it'll be broken. For the record, I am neither a basketball or a LeBron fan, but the widespread coverage and significance shows this is not some run-of-the-mill record. Curbon7 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the fall of a longstanding, 40-year record, for individual points in the NBA, the top league of one of the most popular sports in the world, so not just routine sports trivia as many are claiming. This is proven by the breadth of coverage. ITN has a longstanding tradition of posting new records taking into account factors such as the popularity of the sport and the length of the record. . Also, the Lebron James article is a GA. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support If he blurb him for it now, we don't blurb him for it again whenever he dies, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  06:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted on the basis of what consensus? I make it 22 supports and 20 opposes, which doesn't sound like one to me. Black Kite (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * obligatory "it's WP:NOTAVOTE/WP:NOTDEMOCRACY". DecafPotato (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, so the quality of comments is supposed to be assessed. It's obvious that a significant proportion of Support comments are not much more than "I love basketball and Le Bron is great." Most of the Oppose comments give reasons. Quite a range of them. I'm not convinced that they have been evaluated properly. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is premature. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And a significant proportion of the opposes are not much more than "sports records get broken all the time" which I think is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen at ITN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Congratulations to LeBron James for breaking the all-time NBA record in nearly 40 years, but many records can be broken all the time, even if it is a long one, like in 2020 Cleveland Browns' win over the Steelers in the road playoff game, which is Browns' first since 1969 against the Dallas Cowboys, or Russell Westbrook breaking Oscar Robertson's triple-double record in May 10, 2021 (which was never nominated to the ITN by the way). I would wholeheartedly support this on DYK though. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. We don't post sporting trivia of this sort, particularly when it's the sort of record you can attain simply through playing more matches than anyone else. By this precedent we will be posting all sorts of similar records in NFL, NHL, football, cricket etc going forward, and we've never done that. I also question the consensus seen above, there seemed too much opposition for this to be a consensus to post. Nominate it at DYK instead. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding on what DYK is about. This is a well-established longstanding GA with a lot of detail, it is pretty much impossible for the subject to be expanded upon to the degree that a DYK feature would make sense. I'm sure this wouldn't be the most interesting fact for a DYK blurb about James either. The whole problem here is that the update to the article is fairly minor despite the news being fairly major; that's the exact opposite to what DYK is all about. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase "particularly when it's the sort of record you can attain simply through playing more matches than anyone else" is very funny to me- like it's 1) so easy to play that many games and 2) the only requirement for scoring the most points. FWIW, the NBA all-time leader in games played is Robert Parish; he played in 200 more games than LeBron yet scored 15,000 fewer points. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I see a lot of opposes that are comparing this record to other trivial records, as if this is going to open up ITN to all sorts of sports records. The basketball career points record is the record in the NBA; there really aren't other records in the NBA worth posting.  It would be like someone breaking Gretzky's goals record in the NHL, or someone breaking Sachin Tendulkar's centuries record, or if someone broke the all time touchdowns record in the NFL, or if someone broke the all-time goals record in soccer; these are the primary career statistic in each sport.  You wouldn't see tributes and headlines on every global news site if someone broke the NBA assist record. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, there's a big difference not being considered there. Yes, an NBA record is like an NFL or NHL record. All three are domestic leagues. I don't know which level of soccer you're referring to but it wouldn't be the American domestic league, would it? It would be in major international competition. And Tendulkar's record was in international Test Cricket, something that's been going for nearly 150 years. It's another level. And I repeat, we almost certainly wouldn't post a new goal scoring record in the Australian Football League, the world's leading competition in that sport. There has been so many pointless, fan frenzy support comments here, I now definitely an Oppose. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reading of the !votes is, at best, curious. So many of the supports have said "This record stood for four decades, the article is a GA, and it's getting a huge amount of news coverage", while so many of the opposes have said "This is just trivia" (which it isn't) and "Records get broken all the time" (but records of this magnitude don't).
 * The NBA, NFL, and NHL are the highest levels of international competition in their respective sports, full-stop. If you listed the 500 best male basketball players ever, it would probably be Oscar Schmidt, a few Harlem Globetrotters, and 496 guys who played in the NBA at some point. LeBron scoring more points than anyone else in NBA history is unquestionably significant, and the media coverage backs that up. I'm indifferent about LeBron- my favorite players are Sabrina Ionescu and Elena Delle Donne- but I can see his breaking the record for the momentous (and newsworthy) achievement that it is. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See List of VFL/AFL players with international backgrounds. (You probably don't even know what those initials stand for.) HiLo48 (talk)


 * Post-posting oppose While basketball is one of the most popular sports globally, this is one record in one league. If we didn't post CR7 breaking the global scoring record in football, the most popular sport by far, why are we posting a less-broad record in a less-popular sport? That's the neutral view. But I'll also ass a personal oppose thought, in that I think with team sports, team/franchise achievements should be considered for posting more than individual ones. Kingsif (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think prioritizing team achievements over individual achievements in team sports is an excellent point, and might need to be considered more in the future. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. With the post-posting opposes, there's now definitely no consensus to post this.  Not to mention that having this bit of trivia sitting above the earthquake story - which is still the #1 story globally - is a little embarrassing IMO. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially that this item went with an image, replacing that of the earthquake's damage. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option is to move forward rather than back. By posting other pending items such as the fires in Chile or the elections in Monaco, the basketball stat will be pushed down and so be less prominent. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my oppose and asking an admin to pull this item. There definitely was no consensus in the first place, nevermind now with the post-posting opposes. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. I always find the individual stats within team sports to be a bit trivial at the best of times. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - we put blurbs for Darts and Snooker tournaments - sports with minor followings, at best - but some here don't want to post that a many-decades-long record in basketball has been broken? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll post the NBA playoff winner too. that's the comparison to be made. M asem (t) 13:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull. How on Earth did this get posted? Regardless of what you think about the merits of the story, there's nothing close to a consensus here. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull especially the image, if nothing else. Crass. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. How is the image in question crass?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an earthquake with more than 17,000 deaths, 50,000 injured and god knows how many lives ruined just underneath, and the main thing we're focusing on is an overpaid sports star having done something mildly interesting. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason we couldn't change the order of the blurbs? Why is that such an insurmountable hurdle? Zagal e jo (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can certainly express your opinion at the inappropriateness of the image in the template, although there's no rule that requires admins to not use an image for a blurb if an earthquake story is posted immediately below it, but to me the use of the adjective "overpaid" just screams "I hate". ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull and close. There's no consensus to post this. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled for the time being. I was not involved in the discussion but from what I see at the moment, there was substantial opposition after posting. Tone 13:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tone! I reiterate my request that this be closed. At this point, with as much participation as we've seen, this will likely never gain a consensus to post again. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nugraha Besoes

 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: any additional information that can be added about Besoes' career as part of the Football Association of Indonesia? The article lists mostly start and end dates, and outside of a link to the scandal that led to his first resignation, doesn't have much information about his role there. Best,  Spencer T• C 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief summary of his term under Halid. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Yakup Taş

 * Support That's a good idea and good reasoning. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant draw attention from this page, not the main page. Per our quality requirements, the article has to be not a stub in order to be posted on the main page. Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tunku Abdul Aziz

 * Support Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Plenty of room for expansion, but this can be handled article-side. Curbon7 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is well-referenced and is long enough to be on the main page. There's room for expansion, but that is not a blocker at the moment. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Daniel Defert

 * Comment Article is holistic and prose is good enough. A couple of CN tags are present. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Richard Kell (poet)

 * Not yet ready Not holistic enough for our purposes; some expansion of his career is needed (c. 1980-2020). Prose is also missing several citations, and bibliography is entirely uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Whittington

 * Comment "The guy Dick Cheney shot". Article is fairly well-cited, but the prose needs mention of his birth and education to be considered holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated to be more holistic.  Crusader 1096  (message) 03:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good; well-cited and holistic. Excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janet Anderson

 * Currently needs some ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated. I have now resolved all "citation needed" tags by adding references, and also added a sub-section regarding her book and relationship to the Queen. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good now; well-cited and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @DatGuy. Not sure what exactly the process is...but I think the nominator and updater get notifications when it posts...and also I think there was at least one RD on February 6 that was marked "Ready" (which seems like a priority since it's older)? Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Credit given. The order of posting isn't a requirement - hypothetically I could only look at RD nominations posted today. In this case, the nominations I passed on below are ones that are either clearly unready for the main page, don't have consensus, or when I went over them I encountered some small hitches which I'd rather defer to a second opinion. For example, in the nomination you're referring to, Niamh Bhreathnach, the lede states Bhreathnach was one of a few TDs to be appointed to cabinet at the start of their first term as a TD, which links to the poorly-sourced records of members of the Oireachtas. It may be a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, but I'm not sure, which is why I'm leaving it for someone else. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, good to know and thanks for explaining @DatGuy! Cielquiparle (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: David Harris (activist)

 * Oppose Sadly the article is far from ready to be posted. There's literally a tag on there saying there needs to be more citations. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready Article still orange-tagged, but it seems that only one {cn} tag remains. Vida0007 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Răzvan Theodorescu

 * Oppose The problem is that a lot of the sources are difficult to verify, as they are in Romanian and permanent dead links. Also I don't think a CV is acceptable as a source. There are also some further citations needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lubomír Štrougal

 * Currently needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , source issues have been fixed; can you take another look? Curbon7 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per improvement mentioned above. - Indefensible (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose He was Prime Minister for 18 years, but there is only 1 sentence in the article about what he did in that role (In the 1980s, he supported perestroika, the reform process initiated by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.). Insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 21:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Niamh Bhreathnach

 * Support Well-cited and holistic enough. The lede is not great, but that isn't too relevant for us and should be handled article-side. Curbon7 (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Body is well-referenced and the article is holistic enough to post to the main page. Looks good to post. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

 * Wait until confirmation of initial death toll. A 7.8 can be deadly, but also could be effectively nothing, though that seems unlikely at this point. M asem (t) 02:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * CNN is reporting at least 17 dead, so that's sufficient for me. But should wait a few more hours to collect more information and get a good article on this. --M asem (t) 03:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AP reports at least 5 deaths in Turkey. Ionmars10 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait. Sure, major damage has been reported, but no deaths have been confirmed. If the death toll becomes decently high or something else like that happens, then I would put it ITN. Idontknowlol7 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until death toll becomes clear NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 03:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. Worth waiting for more concrete information on deaths and/or damages. Should clear notability in the end, but no rush right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support posting now, which is when people are actually looking to us to help them find this content. On significance, The New York Times is reporting that "significant casualties are likely". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember that our goal is to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker. Not that this won't get posted (the death count numbers are rapidly going up) but we want to make sure the article is in reasonable shape before posting. M asem (t) 04:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per AP reports 195 deaths in Turkey and Syria. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - nearly 200 dead last time I checked and its been a few hours. Tragic.  Crusader 1096  (message) 05:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Terrible international tragedy. Article is high enough quality.— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting now for reasons above Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Supportdeath toll keeps rising, over 200 only in Syria per CNNParadise Chronicle (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- horrible news. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support terrible number of victims. Article looks good enough to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Unfortunately, the earthquake was not only strong, but very shallow and close to the city. It will surely take days to get an accurate picture of the damage and casualties. We won't get any value from waiting further. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 06:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 06:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update - (BNO News) Death toll is up to 604 now, so it should be changed to "at least 600". Elijahandskip (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Image The greatest need is an image. I've suggested a suitable map above as most of our readers will not be familiar with Turkish geography.  Otherwise, the article still needs work but that's typical of breaking news.  For example, the article is confused as to whether this is the "strongest ever recorded" or tied with earlier events. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update - Earthquake Kills More Than 1,200 in Turkey and Syria. The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/05/world/turkey-earthquake . M.Karelin (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is terrible news, the amount of death is catastrophic, definitely worthy for ITN. Vriend1917 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Inge Sargent

 * Comment Very close to being post-able. There is a single CN tag about the movie being banned in Myanmar, and two uses of unRS (YouTube and IMDb), but these should both be easy to fix. Additionally, the first paragraph of the Queen consort section should be re-written to be encyclopedic. Curbon7 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues are resolved in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Citation issues fixed; the prose issues were much more fundamental than I originally, but I've re-jigged it. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Election in Monaco

 * Support Comparing it to the article for the Beninese parlimentary election in January, it stacks up solidly. It definitely could use some work, but this seems pretty good. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A little short, but appears to be sufficient for an election article for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support The analysis section probably brings this over the line to main-page readiness, but only just so. Would like to see some more expansion.  Also, suggest using the attributive noun in the piped link rather than the adjectival form so it reads the the Monaco general elections, as Monegasque, while correct, is likely unfamiliar to many readers.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I find it hard to support this, even if it does qualify as ITNR and just about meets our minimum quality requirements. Since the last election, all three of the main political parties merged, giving themselves 23 of the 24 seats; in this election they received 90% of the vote and all 24 seats. That does not appear to be a competitive democratic process, more an establishment stitch-up. 80,000 votes were cast, in a country with a population of 40,000, while the article still describes that as a 57% turnout - no explanation for those highly discrepant numbers is given. It's always tricky when we consider sham elections, but given how small the country is, and how mediocre the article, I'm inclined against posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The "discrepancy" is caused because (as Elections in Monaco notes) "Each voter may cast a ballot with up to 16 candidates' names"; the actual turn-out number of 7,594 is given in the article, although I suppose this should be made more clear. It also clearly wasn't a sham election, though I concur with "establishment stitch-up". Curbon7 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. That should be explained in the nominated article. Still, the franchise must be extremely limited if that's 57% - are less than a third of residents qualified to vote? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Residency in many (perhaps most) places does not always qualify one to vote. For example Australia requires one to be a citizen in order to vote.  Merely living in Australia is not enough.  Also, Australia has an age minimum, people under 18 cannot vote.  Thus, the official number of people living in Australia is going to be significantly higher than the number of eligible voters, as the number of voters by law does not include anyone aged 0-18, nor does it include resident aliens, both of whom are counted among the population, but not among the voters.  Monaco likely has similar requirements for citizenship and age, as do many (if not most) countries.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and Added altblurb. Apologies for my duplicate nomination earlier, didn't see this. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Modest Genius. Not sure if this can truly be called a proper election. The Kip (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Altblurb The president's bio is a stub. This is an inherently sketchy country, but that's alright. A fifth of its people have allegedly spoken. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Elections in any recognized country are ITN-worthy in my opinion, however I agree we need a better blurb. Evan224 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one is fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The "oppose"s claiming that it was a sham election seem to have misunderstood how Monaco's electoral system works. I prefer the original blurb over the alt. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - per above.  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius, and because while a country its election have less significance than those of most principal administrative divisions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All national elections of this kind are posted, no matter how big or small the country is. Arguing which countries are significant enough to be posted or not is a slippery slope. Curbon7 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's on WP:ITN/R, so there's no question as to its notability, and there is a community consensus that it is notable. The article itself is well-referenced and high-enough quality for the main page. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging recently active admins on ITN for one of them to evaluate consensus before this goes stale: Ad Orientem, Spencer, Tone, Stephen. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is in a good shape, small country or not. --Tone 08:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a week late. Now appearing higher ITN than an earthquake that killed more people than live in this microstate. Xxavyer (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN doesnt work like that, each blurb is posted on its own merits independently of other events. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   20:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hsing Yun

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is not badly written and the person is no doubt worldwide famous.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: May Sayegh

 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems fine. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammys

 * Support if prose is fixed per nom comments.  Crusader 1096  (message) 05:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Per @Knightoftheswords281 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masem, this sure is quite the list. It needs a lot of work for the prose to be serviceable for the front-page as an encyclopedic article. I don't believe it makes sense to question the ITN/R status based on this, but that might not be a discussion for this page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per policy WP:NOTPROMOTION. This is a typical trade show in which there are zillions of categories so that everyone can get name-checked and a prize.  And it's a sign of the moribund state of the gramophone biz that ABBA is high in the lists.  And there's lots of genre fragmentation so it's a POV to highlight rap rather than country, jazz or gospel.  And even then, the genres here are just traditional American rather than global – there doesn't seem to be any Cantopop, K-pop, Desi, Afrobeats etc. that much of the world's population prefers. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This might be another (more) relevant argument for removing the Grammies from ITN/R. Currently it still is, and it would be likely to be posted if the article is fixed up appropriately. I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news to measure consensus on the Grammies' ITN/R situation. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Wikipedia considers that a disco/funk/pop record, not rap. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to be covering its bets about the Lizzo track. Having just watched the official video, I have no particular opinion about its musical style but am quite sure that it's very American.  I'm content with ABBA and Nena but, as ever, de gustibus non est disputandum... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Music is universal, my friend. The lyrics are definitely in American English. But the tune is disco as Hell and very little rhymes (alright with lights, celebrate with OK). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTPROMOTION would apply to nearly all sporting events save for the Olympics since the goal is the money and fame from the victory. We should be aware that ceremonies are intended to draw audiences and thus are going to be promotional in nature, but the underlying competition is not (to an observable degree) driven by pure commercial interests. (Also, ABBA reunited recently and thus there's no reason to dismiss their win, it is not like they are winning on 30+ yr old songs). M asem (t) 13:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We can dismiss their win because they didn't win anything, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Noting this for the record, although it's ITN/R, per Andrew (for once) and due to the fact we're unable to get the Grammy articles into serviceable shape year after year, which to me demonstrates that not enough people care about it.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'll be bold and oppose this one on notability, just like WaltCip right above. It's ITN/R, but should it be, really? Not enough people care about it to get the article in good shape for the main page anyway... The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I busted my ass fixing those ampersands, but so long as there's a consensus developing, I also don't care enough to write something good. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip on notability and suggest removal from ITN/R if it is having consistent issues getting up to par quality-wise. <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 14:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, major music Award Kirill C1 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note - "The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." 174.113.161.1 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if fixed, but not opposed to having a discussion about the ITNR significance for moving forward. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is simply a list of bullet points, not even a table. Nowhere near the level of prose required for posting. Given it's been four days and no-one has bothered to write any text in the article, this seems unlikely to be fixed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb:Pervez Musharraf

 * Support blurb -- given that he was instrumental in effecting the coup. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Article in good shape, although some of the tenses still need to be sorted, but that shouldn’t hold anything up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think we need to figure this out. Are deaths of former heads of state ITN/R? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We had this same discussion when Constantine II died, and I don't think we reached a consensus PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Add exile in Dubai to the blurb? Only a suggestion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Death blurbs don't usually include location, I think. Juxlos (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * RD no blurb A routine death with no special features or update which therefore belongs at RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Last living military head of state of the 5th most populous country. Joofjoof (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's ironic to read in The Signpost that Wikipedia is now blocked in Pakistan... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies of same thing at same age as Antonio Inoki, but without changing the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that Inoki had become president of Japan through a coup d'état and was subsequently sentenced to death for treason. How could I not know that! _-_Alsor (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Inoki did things his peers didn't and his industry hadn't. Set new records, affecting the way wrestling is done and MMA is promoted. That's way better than becoming another famous criminal, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, should have told Jon Stewart before the show. Joofjoof (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is in a great shape, I am posting RD for the time being. Blurb discussion can continue, I see good reasons for posting. --Tone 12:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? In this nom, you see one reason for posting, good or bad. Rockstone said he was instrumental in the coup. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm not seeing any clear indicator in the article to speak of his legacy or impact, nor can read that from the information given - his period of leadership had a lot of turmoil but that doesn't equate to being a major world figure or the like --M asem (t) 14:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Sui generis major figure. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb One of the more significant leaders of his country and in the region more broadly. Prominet on the world stage. Article is in good shape for a pleasant change. Referencing is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Article is good enough, He was one famous figure in the region. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Long term dictator, initiated a war with high nuclear tentions, a coup which  started his reign of about a decade only ending after a long (internationally noted) protest movement the assassination of the first woman prime minsiter of a Muslim country, was sentenced to death (which we did post), but was overturned. All of these are blurbable events, his death naturally should follow. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Being a prominent world leader is not enough for a blurb. The standard should be RD unless there are exceptional circumstances and I'm not seeing that here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. IMHO being a prominent world leader is a very good standard for blurbing deceased heads of state/government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support he had a lot of notable events during his time in power (the coup, Kargil War etc). He gave the infamous NRO which allowed many politicians such as Nawaz Sharif (who later became prime minister again in 2013) and Benazir Bhutto to return to the country without fear of corruption cases. Although the order was later overturned, the politicians who had returned due to the NRO were already back in power. He definitely left a legacy and in my opinion, he deserves to be blurbed.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb With respect to OMD, we wouldn't hesitate to post the death of a former US president; Musharraf was a major figure in the South Asia region broadly (hence, international), and is in recent memory still. Curbon7 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. There is sufficient consensus here, with good reasoning. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The posted blurb is missing a period at the end. 108.46.24.72 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thank you. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoo, crisis averted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-facto support blurb, in case this becomes controversial. Leader of the world's sixth-most populous country for a non-trivial period, and was leading one side during the world's first war between nuclear-armed countries. Should be an obvious blurb. 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;Longtime ruler of a country which had over 150 million people at the time (over 200 million now), he led Pakistan's military government during a very consequential period in its history (an insurgency, an earthquake, and a bunch of other major events and developments). A no-brainer, frankly. Kurtis (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose – Only really one line added to the article about his death; the update to this article does not seem frontpage-worthy at all. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roberto Ongpin

 * Comment: Roberto_Ongpin needs some referencing work, but otherwise this is pretty close.  Spencer T• C 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already fixed the wording and retrieved references for that particular section. Vida0007 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire 'Later career' section looks a bit like a résumé, but the sourcing seems to fit. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. I have to admit it looks a bit like that; other than that though, I think the article is already fine (as I have mentioned above, I already added the references). Vida0007 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing looks good enough to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ismail Tipi

 * Oppose Sourcing issue remains outstanding. Quite a few unsourced statements. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Flimm

 * Support Looks good for our purposes; well-cited and holistic. Excellent work as usual. Curbon7 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vani Jairam

 * Oppose Many whole paragraphs and sections of the article (as well as most of the awards) are unsourced and it appears to be written in a very hagiographic manner. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sherif Ismail

 * Support - looks good. Well cited.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a little more about his political career can be explained. He was for almost three years PM at a turbulent time in the country's recent history. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and covers the important parts. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) São Paulo scuttled

 * Support - ITN worth, plus we posted the sinking of the HTMS Sukhothai a month and a half ago.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted Sukhothai due to the death toll, no one died here, just a routine decomissioning of a ship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This wasn't routine. It was towed around at sea for months, desperately trying to find a scrapyard that would take it.  The scuttling was then a last resort to avoid it sinking in an even worse place.  The prolonged agony was in the news and now we have the climax. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Ship decomissioned, not really a big deal. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I really want you to explain why this is significant, because I'm just not seeing it.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Capital ships sinking, whether planned or unplanned, isn’t something that happens often. The Kip (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Insignificant. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Intentional sinking of a decommissioned ship with very little impact. If the ports actually accepted it and it got scrapped like intended this most likely wouldn't have been nominated for ITN. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Supportthat they try to get rid of a toxic issue by dumping it into the nature where it doesn't bother humans is ITN worthyParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was already in the works to be scuttled when it was pulled out from port and forced these steps. This tends to happen to all large ships. --M asem (t) 14:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The noteworthy part is the fact that numerous governments refused to let it dock under pressure from environmental groups, and as a result the Brazilian navy is scuttling the ship despite the presence of substantial toxic materials aboard. The involvement and interface of multiple governments and internationally recognized environmental groups in itself makes this signigicant. The media coverage around this has been extensive and highlights Brazil's failed attempt to recycle the ship sustainably. The noteworthiness argument here isn't about being a planned vs unplanned decommissioning, its about the months long process that mentioned, and the ultimate outcome, which could set a precedent for other ships and the handling of toxic vessels in the South Asian sea. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that the reason action was taken is that the last inspection of the hull found holes that were beyond the state of repairs that the ship was going to go down soon, so that forced the end of the process here, (they didn't want it sinking in any port) it was not like they legally exhausted all options, etc. So it would not really be fair to call this a groundsetting outcome. --M asem (t) 16:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources state that there is no explanation why the navy did not take the ship back, and its condition deteriorated further as the ship circled as a result. There is media coverage [1 ] [2 ] around the argument from environmental groups that Brazil violated international convention. The notability here is in the process itself not the ultimate outcome Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose How is an aircraft carrier ITN-worthy? Evan224 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are numerous situations in which "an aircraft carrier" can be ITN-worthy. Curbon7 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is a significant backstory to this involving a huge environmental threat from the ship which was(is?) full of dangerous materials. It recently got front page news coverage from the NY Times. A lot of people were quite exercised over the idea of sinking her but they couldn't find a port that would allow the ship to be docked even on a temporary basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem BilledMammal (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cool, a ship got scuttled. What difference does it make? How is this ITN-worthy? Why is this even on the ITN proposals? Wikipedia's ITN section is created solely on the basis of posting major world events, not news about ships (most of us haven't even heard of), being scuttled. Evan224 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike double !vote. Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is quite well-written and the scuttling is significant due to its environmental implications and the precedent it sets. Curbon7 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A new blurb focusing on the environmental aspect would be preferred though, I think. Curbon7 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Unusual story, decent article, and capital ships don't sink (deliberately or otherwise) very often. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support What a bizarre story. Got decent coverage and is just ITN-worthy. Solid article.  Schwede 66  21:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * • Strong oppose and speedy close This story is so insignificant I can't believe this is still on the ITN proposals. Like I said in my above comment, Wikipedia's ITN section is created solely on the basis of posting major world events, not news about ships (most of us haven't even heard of) being scuttled.
 * Also, there are no deaths or injuries. This affected nobody. Are we really going to post a story about this insignificant ship being scuttled right above a disaster that killed at least 12,000 people in Turkey and Syria? Evan224 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What art of do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one do y'all not understand?  Crusader 1096  (message) 15:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. There is a rich and significant backstory here, and the event is so unusual that it merits inclusion on the main page. The article is high quality enough, and the scuttling of an aircraft carrier is a truly rare event. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is way below the level of significance necessary for an ITN posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why was this marked as "ready"? I'm not seeing a consensus.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article briefly mentions environmental concerns, but it doesn’t go into enough detail about them & it doesn’t mention whether or not the scuttling actually led to environmental problems. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed as duplicate; see below) 2023 China balloon incident

 * Speedy close this is already under discussion below. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Norfolk Southern train derailment

 * This will need a dedicated article (like Norfolk Southern train derailment) in order to be posted. For now there's not much to say here. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That there were no appreciable human harm (only the evacuation), this may be not be significant enough to post. --M asem (t) 13:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can monitor this today and follow up if there is any significant destruction or loss of life if the train does explode as they expect. 636Buster (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Life is imitating art, apparently a little too closely. Don DeLillo's modern classic White Noise is finally a movie.  It was filmed almost entirely in northeastern Ohio. 2607:F470:E:22:41A:EBED:8E3C:A7B0 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No wikipedia content has been written about the event. We have no article to direct readers to so they can learn more about it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A separate article is likely needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose theres no seperate article, and also theres barely any information about this event.  TomMasterReal  TALK 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if there was a separate article, this doesn’t seem notable enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update There is now a dedicated article at 2023 Ohio train derailment regarding this incident and I've changed the article for nomination as such. 636Buster (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close I don't see this being very important to the world. I don't see this fit for the world news section. Evan224 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is not the "world news section". Curbon7 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support These types of train derailments are rare, but other important things should probably be placed instead. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. There is now an article. Significant industrial disaster. The cleanup continues a week afterwards and there are reports of widespread sickness in humans and animals. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Enterprisey. There's been talk of long-term effects from this, event now has an article with detail. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paco Rabanne

 * Almost Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. There is only one outstanding CN tag in the Eccentricities section; once that is rectified, consider this a support. Curbon7 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed that paragraph. I don't think it adds anything interesting or relevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support looks enough for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an outstanding tag about the lead's length.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tag was removed and lead expanded.—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) The balloons go up

 * Weak support - Mainly supporting this due to the extensive news coverage it has been getting, but at the same time I do think a lot of this has been sensationalised, and I have a feeling this will have no significant impact, and everyone will forget about it in a week's time. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb II seems to be the most well-written. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a major diplomatic incident in geopolitics as China and the United States are one of the most powerful countries in the world and any incursion by one onto the other's territory is ITN. If we add Chinese incursions into Kashmir to ITN, we should add this as well. I also support a mix of Altblurbs II and III. Djprasadian (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It’s been shot down, there’s 2, the Chinese government is denying it which usually means that they did do it and are hiding it. Vriend1917 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support What are we waiting for? This is dominating the headlines everywhere, it's better that we post this global ongoing event instead of waiting around for nothing. Evan224 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment you guys need to figure this out soon. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Unsure about the article yet, I think it will need a bit more work before it's ready. The image doesn't seem appropriate at all: an image of a balloon of the same design might be acceptable, but a WWII Japanese balloon does not work for us here. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The image (right) is mainly a placeholder as I expect we'll get a free image as and when it gets near a Wikipedian. But also, as an encyclopedia, we have lots of material about historical precedents and it's good to air it on such occasions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The duplicate nomination suggested a picture of the Pentagon briefing, so we might try that. The article has a picture of the actual balloon but that's fair-use and fuzzy and so not adequate for ITN, yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I love that argument and I agree that it would be great. I am worried about lots of implications in comparing this incident with Emperial Japan sending a balloon to the US in the middle of a war. We shouldn't suggest the two incidents are equivalent, I believe. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that China and the US are engaged in a Second Cold War. See also Chinese espionage in the United States.  This also reminds me of the 1960 U-2 incident and it's conceivable that it could have come from Russia.  It will be interesting to see if it's captured... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A cold war is not comparable to a war with a lot of active fighting. This doesn't at all diminish the notability of an incident like this, but comparing espionage with direct attacks can create undue fear. This balloon is not going to drop bombs. The U2 incident might be a better comparison, but that would feel like an even odder image to include. Unless we had a tradition of linking news items back to past events, which would've been nice maybe... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that the US is working on its own balloons too. Apparently these are to counter hypersonic weapons -- who knew?  The plot thickens... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that everyone should come together with these balloons and throw a party PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's interesting to read that "Back then, Eisenhower tried to minimize it at first, ordering the NASA press office, stunningly, to say the U-2 had been conducting “weather research,” and that Powers might just have strayed a trifle off course and wandered over top-secret Soviet military facilities..." History repeats! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is only barely comparable to the U-2 incident and it’s silly to argue that comparison. A spy plane pilot getting shot down and held as a POW is worlds apart from a spy balloon being spotted.
 * If anything, this is just a slightly escalated version of an average spy satellite. The Kip (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait -- unless this actually develops into something, I don't think this is (yet) appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now it’s anecdotal and, as you well know Andrew, this kind of things are not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's currently the top read story on the BBC and is apparently all over Chinese social media too. For a European connection which you may appreciate see a favourite song of mine: "The President is on the line..." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you may have noticed by now that not every "top read story on the BBC" is ITNR-worthy, as this is not a news paper. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course this is a newspaper. The offical signaling from the Pentagon makes it clear this is sn important story. I do think we need a closer awareness of journalistic practice on Wikipedia. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:NOTNP. Btw, the Department of Defense statement reads: "Ryder said the balloon is well above commercial air traffic and doesn't pose a threat to civil aviation. He also said this isn't the first time such a balloon has been seen over the United States", and "Currently, we assess that this balloon has limited additive value from an intelligence collective collection perspective," the official said. "But we are taking steps, nevertheless, to protect against foreign intelligence collection of sensitive information."
 * Another case of American overdramatization for everything. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand the purpose of including a photo of a Fu-Go balloon bomb when the purpose of the "suspicious balloon" has not even been confirmed. Let's not alarm. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - official signaling from the Pentagon is probably indicative of this story's noteworthiness.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it has been confirmed that the Biden administration is moving to down the balloon.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: plane was shot down by US aircraft. @Rockstone35 @Alsoriano97 @Modest Genius @Thebiguglyalien @Vriend1917 @Jayron32 @Editor 5426387 @GenevieveDEon @WaltCip @Rsrikanth05 @Masem @The Kip y'all may want to reconsider.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * so…? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The the highly publicized downing of a balloon, regardless if it was Chinese or not, under a coordinated military operation is unprecedented and I firmly believe that arguing that that this isn't newsworthy is rather foolish.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If a war breaks out, perhaps then. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that the threshold for posting to ITN now? &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that but this isn't a U-2 being shot down is it? -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Disappointed I wasn't @'ed
 * Regardless, there's still a balloon over South America, and the diplomatic crisis isn't over. But yeah this does start to hurt the notability, we better reach a consensus quick before the story becomes stale. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * • Still Oppose - even if it got shot down, the news is not ITN-worthy unless something MAJOR results, like a war, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose The story is "An balloon of unknown origin is being tracked". The article text says the same thing, but with a lot more words. There's not enough about this story to support a blurb if we don't have anything worthwhile to say. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Currently this is just an accusation. No-one has demonstrated that the balloon is Chinese or has any nefarious purpose. Even if they did, it will need to spark a major diplomatic incident to justify posting in ITN. I'm willing to reconsider if this starts having major impacts. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to have any significance at this time. A country detecting the spycraft of another country happens every once in a while, nothing ever comes of it. Even then, I strongly oppose the use of an unrelated image. Might as well use File:Birthday balloons.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote as the story develops. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This story has to develop, its not appropriate for posting, nor closing yet. Vriend1917 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the article has developed to where it is good enough to appear on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per above, and, unless sit actually develops into anything major, the news is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)]''"
 * Oppose - This is currently a curiosity, rather than a major incident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close - NYT announced over the wire that China claims it's a civilian balloon. Since it wasn't shot down and there's no contrary evidence, there's nothing left to analyzed. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was shot down and we should also take whatever the Chinese government says with a grain of salt. Djprasadian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time I had !voted, it had not been shot down. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Checking after a day, I see that it's the top 4 headlines at the NYT starting with "Furor Over Chinese Spy Balloon Leads to a Diplomatic Crisis". And the latest news is that "Diplomatic row between China and US escalates as Pentagon says second 'spy balloon' being tracked".  This escalation requires further consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Everybody loves balloons. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Has resulted in the cancellation of Blinken's trip to China, increasing tensions between the two powers. BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. per Hawkeye7. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't really seem very significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until something actually happens. If the balloon is confirmed to be for surveillance purposes, this is a reminder that countries spying on each other is not uncommon, especially between rivals like China and America. If China turns out to be right here and the balloon is not for spying, then yeah... there's no reason to explain why that would not be posted. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait till Monday Now South America has one, too. That needs more weight. A little more Canadian content wouldn't hurt, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the media and politics making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is why we do not follow what the news considered to be most important and instead look for encyclopedic value. --M asem (t) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly.... _-_Alsor (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's clear that high levels of multiple governments are concerned by this situation. Let's at least have a little humility: none of us here knows how this story is going to develop. Sometimes these weird little moments do escalate and end up in the history books. The prudent decision for ITN is to wait. Zagal e jo (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The tension between China and the USA also "escalated a lot" with Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and ended in nothing. American noise. And that doesn't make it ITN-worhty. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It definitely did not end in nothing as you claim. Multiple important lines of communications between America and China were severed after the visit (as far as i know they haven't been restored yet) and it led to an overall deterioration in the relationship which you could argue directly engendered this balloon incident. And this isn't even counting the other consequences of the visit which impacted other nations (Taiwan, Japan) that could have the potential to further escalate tensions between the US and China. I am not sure if the Pelosi incident was posted, but even if it wasn't that doesn't mean this one shouldn't be either. Restflux (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing that indicates that US/China relations have been irreparable harmed. This is standard tensions as the Pelosi visit. We absolutely cannot speculate on possible impacts that haven't happened, and every day there are strains on interntaional relationships between various countries, this is nothing new. M asem (t) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is "encyclopedic value"? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We are talking topics that have more than a burst of coverage and will be significant 10+ years down the road, which is not what this story currently is and with no evidence of having serious long term effects. If there are breakdowns in diplomacy between countries due to this, then that might be something but that's impossible to read at this point. M asem (t) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to stress, in the aftermath of the balloon being shot down, this is a textbook example of a media circus. The only thing that has resulted from it has been some strain on US/China relations and while there may be something down the road with that, this one event is the media and political circles trying to make this seem more important than it actually is. M asem (t) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it not be better to wait for confirmation as to their espionage status, perhaps posting then would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support conditionally, depending on the gravity of any potential additional developments or revelations over the weekend and beyond. If: 1) it's officially revealed that the balloon has ballistics capabilities, 2) the balloon is shot down over the ocean, 3) the balloon is guided down for further analysis, 4) it's officially revealed that the balloon somehow has an active crew aboard, and/or 5) these are confirmed by multiple states as surveillance-oriented and they're dotted all over the globe, as examples, then this qualifies as a next-level world diplomatic event, and should go up immediately.  Beyond that, the article as it stands has been tended to very well thus far, and wouldn't need a whole lot of additional work to qualify.  If nothing changes and this story peters away, then no need to promote it. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support + alt blurb 4 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has led to a fairly minor diplomatic spat and nothing more. Not ITN-worthy. The Kip (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - international story that's had legs --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Per The New York Times, the balloon was shot down. DecafPotato (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Ongoing coverage of a developing international incident Tisnec (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The story definitely has some weight behind it now. Kafoxe (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fairly Emphatic Wait. To me this looks like a story that, while encyclopedic, will largely be forgotten in a year and will likely be resolved with little real conflict (i.e. the verbal type). Still, I think we may be behooved to wait a bit longer to see if there is indeed tension that comes of this. As things stand, I would quite emphatically be opposed per Masem, but I believe we may wish to let this breathe a bit more. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Alt-blurb III is the most well-written, obviously a big news event. I'm not sure the relevance of some of the arguments against, this is a big news story according to a wide variety of Western news outlets.Yeoutie (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support: Yeah, sure. Major coverage, the impact of the event is unclear but this sort of thing isn't a regular event, apparently the first aircraft to be shot down in US airspace since WWII. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- it's not like this happens every day, and it has intentional impact (since, despite the admonition above, people apparently care about that). This will be in the news for some time to come; so it is now a situation that warrants posting. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait and leaning oppose. These balloons flew before, just this time it has become a "surveillance balloon".Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Major powers possibly spying on each other? What a shocking revelation! Khuft (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's superpowers, brother, and they're shooting on each other. Well, one side's shooting. But even if it's the one you'd expect to blow something foreign up, it hasn't happened domestically in a long time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now it's been shot down, and disregard immediately these opposing !votes based on, err, "it hasn't been shot down yet".  SN54129  14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in light of how the incident is developing and not dying away. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support given the scale of coverage (this is inarguably 'in the news' currently) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs)
 * Support based on continuing news coverage and relative rarity of such an event. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It’s absolutely laughable that this is gonna get posted. I think ITNR’s “American bias” is usually a silly concept, but it’s genuinely coming in full force here.


 * Oh cool, an unmanned spy balloon got spotted then shot down, causing a comparatively small diplomatic spat of a similar level to Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, which wasn’t posted. Totally ITNR-worthy. The Kip (talk)
 * Such an American bias that it's currently (still) the top story on BBC News, CBC News, and Le Monde. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support given the scale and scope of the coverage in the news. The fact that the incident has a military dimension because it was shot down has implications that I think a lot of the comments+editors here either don't fully understand or aren't appreciating. This is definately much more than just a run-of-the-mill diplomatic spat between the United States and China Restflux (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting Consensus favors it, going with a modification of alts 4 and 5. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. As to this being unique, this mentions: "The official said Chinese balloons briefly transited the continental United States at least three times during the prior administration." I guess normally we do not make a big deal about it. If the US somehow sanctions China over this, maybe it will be significant. Maybe. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Where??? _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Consensus does not require unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The tally is 23-10 (give or take) in favor of posting the story, with most of the "yes" votes coming within the past day or so, so a consensus to post has clearly developed. Just because you have a hatred for all news relating to America (as demonstrated by your past behavior on similar stories) doesn't mean you can unilaterally demand a story should be pulled when the community states otherwise. 2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there are:
 * 25 Support votes
 * 10 Oppose votes
 * 5 Wait votes
 * 3 Comments
 * Definitely a consensus PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder that this isn’t a vote.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 19:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also thought the quality of supports was stronger than the quality of opposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support Somehow I missed this, but it is a no brainer. One of the biggest news stories of the last few days both here in the US and internationally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Quality article that explains international diplomatic ramifications.  Spencer 'T• C 05:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul A. David

 * The article needs a lot of work. Looking forward to checking it out again after your work, Ktin. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits done. Greatly appreciate your look. Ktin (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Short, but sufficient enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Glória Maria
Not Ready - Needs more inline citations. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean-Pierre Jabouille

 * Not yet ready The article is practically entirely unreferenced, although at least his stats are referenced. Curbon7 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: K. Viswanath

 * Support. Looks thoroughly cited. Comprehensive details on his career. One messy line at the end of the "Television" section, hopefully someone will fix that soonish. Tbh, he probably needs a separate filmography page but that's not relevant to RD. e.b. (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks important enough for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Importance does not matter at all for RD. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good. Thanks, Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 03:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be in good shape. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Admin Action Needed: Article is properly sourced and ready to be posted. Thanks,  ƬheStrike  Σagle   06:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Sourcing on the prose is fine, but the filmography is only about half-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lanny Poffo

 * Not yet ready As stated by the nom, significant chunks are unsourced. The prose is quite bizarre at spots, but is overall ok, although there seem to be way too many two-sentence sections which may benefit from being condensed. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still issues. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a wrestling article, they're eternally unclean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Woolcott

 * Support Good condition, ready to be posted. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support A bit rough, but sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, well-sourced, good to go. Tails   Wx  18:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Carin Goldberg

 * Comment Prose looks sufficient enough. There is one CN tag in the prose, and the Notable covers is completely uncited, but those appear to be the only issues. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have added the missing prose source and commented out the notable covers section. Curbon7 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Tom Brady retires (again)

 * Support. I'm sure this will be the last time. He said so, for real this time.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, feel free to add more sources as they come in. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fool me once... We don't shouldn't post athlete retirements for this exact reason. Curbon7 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose thus demonstrating the follies of posting sports retirements. --M asem (t) 14:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason Brady’s retirement was opposed last time. Retirements often aren’t. Status Quo did their farewell tour in 1984. Humbledaisy (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (again) :D --Tone 14:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though I suppose it might start to get notable if he does it about ten times. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As it is obviously for real this time. We do in fact post sports retirements as we have previously posted Alex Ferguson and Sachin Tendulkar. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, as soon as Lionel Messi announces his retirement, WP:ITN will bend over backwards to make sure he's given the picture blurb treatment within hours of the announcement, because "association football is a different beast". ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with WaltCip here. Not that I support (or oppose; I know nothing about American football) this nomination, but oppose !votes that oppose "because we don't post retirements" will most probably support Messi's or Ronaldo's "because they're legendary GOATs of the game." The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm consistent. When it comes that time, I will still oppose. Curbon7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The only retirement I can remember supporting was Benedict XVI's which was a little different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, just because you screw something up once, doesn't mean you're required to screw it up forever. "We did this before so we must do it every time" is a bad rationale for that reason.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we did "screw up" but you are of course entitled to that opinion. I wanted to correct the assertions above that "we don't do it" in case anyone was misled.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the sort of stories we should post in the ITN section. Amounts to inconsequential celebrity gossip.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose - he already retired once ... he could come out of retirement again. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We don't post retirements for a lot of reasons. Case in point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose just no, just no, we all know he'll probably come back. he ain't fooling me again.  TomMasterReal  TALK 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose even as someone who adamantly believes that sports retirements are ITN worthy. I think we made a mistake not posting this last time, un-retirement or not, but per the above "fool me once..." comments, I'm not inclined to believe this one lasts and therefore am not going to die on the hill of a "support" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose How can we make sure that this time is for real NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Sports retirements are ITN-worthy IMO, but a) Brady has "retired" before, and b) the source given doesn't really prove significance. DecafPotato (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per all above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF)

 * Strong support, post immediately - As consensus has been reached in the previous discussion that we should post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support and support posting immediately due to how time-sensitive this is. Good article, strong coverage today in reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I don't see what has changed since the last nomination a week ago, which ended as no consensus. This comet is not ITNR, it isn't visible to anyone who doesn't have a pair of binoculars (unless they live in an area with no light pollution at all) and knows exactly where to look, and being green isn't unusual. The article is OK but nothing more than that. There has been a bit of media coverage but largely restricted to the science sections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous nomination was not closed; it just scrolled off after there were lots of !votes of "Wait". So, we've waited. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Astronomical items are not required to be ITN/R in order to be newsworthy or ITN-worthy, otherwise nothing would ever get posted except for great comets. It would make for a rather limited pool of science stories. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that items don't have to be on ITNR to be posted. I was disagreeing with the 'intr=yes' parameter that was set in the nomination template. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous one had a number of people preferring this to be posted on Feb 1, which is today. As one of those people, I strongly support posting immediately. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Magnitude 5 is pretty bright. It should be visible in the outskirts of major cities, under moonless skies. Perhaps we should include some instructions for viewing in the blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support posting immediately because it is the closest approach now. - azpineapple (need help? 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral – I suggested a wait last time, but that was also because the quality of the article didn't seem up to par yet, and this hasn't changed since. The lack of bare-eye visibility (0.3 AU is quite far away) makes this a somewhat hard sell. It's probably fine to post but none of this makes me particularly excited. I still approve of the main blurb as the optimal choice. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comets are not near-Earth asteroids, 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet releases enough gas and dust. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It is easily visible under moonless skies, with little light pollution. It's at magnitude 5 right now, which, while not incredibly bright, is still just about visible from my location in the outer suburbs of a city of 14 million people.
 * Also, I'm pushing for us to diversify the stories we post from just being changes in heads of state or X tragedy kills Y people PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, though I think the blurb should both say the official comet name and that it is a green comet. I don't think it requires that everyone on earth be able to see it with the naked eye (eg, clearly urban centers have too much background light to do so) but as long as it is some appreciable fraction that have the potential to see it, its a good idea to post. Article appears to be in good shape. --M asem (t) 13:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Proposed alt2. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 (or the base blurb). Oppose alt1. DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It was a bit silly that it didn't get posted last week, but c'est la vie. Just because an event is not ITN/R doesn't prevent us from posting if it is particularly newsworthy, as this one is. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pending quality checks of course. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting immediately, noting that of course if it doesn't get posted today, then there will be no point to posting this as the event will have already come and gone.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - what is the significance of this comet? It has little cultural presence like Halley, etc. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As @PrecariousWorlds pointed out, we do have to diversify our blurbs a little bit. We haven't had a science-related story at ITN for quite some time now, and this one is receiving pretty good coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for those who love global significance, with sources in the West (CNN BBC) and the Arab World (Alarabiya) reporting on it. The Independent are also covering it live on their website. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess that's cool. But I do think the blurb needs to do more to establish that this is notable and not just a "diversity candidate" (to appropriate phrasing from the (un)professional world). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just about being a diversity candidate, it's about providing interesting stories that viewers of Wikipedia want to read, apart from Depressing Tragedy no. 352. I think astronomical events like these should be ITN:R, as they are In The News. I think we should also post major infrastructure projects as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bestagon PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * • Support, Posting immediately - per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Reasonably significant as far as astronomical news goes and the article is well-cited. Probably should have been posted a few days ago. And while this shouldn't be a factor when considering any individual story, it would be nice to have more science topics at ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think alt2 is better here; it mentions both the official name and the fact that it's green. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The link is to the article with the full title. I doubt that the majority of our readers will be that worked up over the actual name. It's the green comet thing that is going to get their attention. That said, if there is a consensus to change the blurb, or another admin thinks that alt II is better, go for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see that a consensus was reached and that this has been posted. It provides desperately-needed balance to the current gamut of ITN stories which amount to four disasters and an election. I hope that this reflects a sea change towards lessening our overall significance restrictions.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose, numerous astronomical bodies, including comets, pass by the Earth every single day. The visibility of this single one is not specifically notable. I would understand if this was say, a Comet Hale–Bopp type event, where the comet is like that of a great comet. At the moment, I don't see the value in pushing this nomination to diversify the coverage of news stories regarding disasters either. Other folks have brought up the magnitude and distance from the Earth that I concur with.Ornithoptera (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC))
 * This is the only comet visible to the naked eye right now, probably for months to come. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to make it a number-game, but only two editors have made the argument of diversifying. That is not why 7 others !voted in support. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I never intended diversifying to be my main argument. The main argument was that reliable sources were in fact treating it as a big deal. Diversifying was intended to be a "pushing factor" for those on the fence to lean support. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet is bright. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC


 * Noting here that there are several comments at WP:ERRORS regarding the "green comet" wording. ansh. 666 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Switched to Alt II per multiple requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I voiced support for alt2, but prefer User:Ravenpuff's newer version: "C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured), a comet with a green coma, makes its closest approach to the Earth".
 * It's nice, and the linked term "coma" will certainly stimulate curiosity in our readers, which is what ITN does at its best. I'd be grateful if editors who already posted here would voice support or opposition to Ravenpuff's version. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this version, for the record. It sounds much more scientific and interesting. Though it is not entirely clear to me why this event has found its way to the Main Page. There are approximately 10 long-period comets crossing the Earth's orbit every year. --TadejM my talk 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They're usually dimmer. It's also been an unusually long time since the last great comet besides 2006 or 7 (I forgot) which was only naked eye at dusk to most North Hemisphere native English speakers for a few days and not at all after dusk (at least in my extreme light pollution). And I guess some might've also called the magnitude ~2.5 2007 or 2008 comet great, it was naked eye in extreme light pollution but not very impressive there especially if you're not into "faint fuzzy "star" with no naked eye tail". Hale-Bopp of 1997 was the last truly impressive non-twilight one. With that said 22 E3 or better comets seem to happen every few years at worst. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I Beg you to remove "green comet" from the top. It's a nonsensical moniker applied to it by media that knows nothing about astronomy- as commonly used as it is, it is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Every comet that has ever graced the sky has been green- saying it's a green comet is like referring to space as "the black space" or the sky as "the blue sky". Sincerely, an actual astronomer. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the gas ever greenish cyan/cyanish green? Would that still count as green? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This ^. We should change the blurb immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is what the comet astronomer Matthew Knight says about the comet's color: "The color of C/2022 E3 (ZTF) isn’t unique: Most comets that have higher gas contents tend to yield C2, so they “are generally going to look green to our eye,” Knight says. That said, only a subset of comets happen to make it as close to Earth as C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will get, so it’ll provide an uncommonly good view of a comet’s emerald hue." --TadejM my talk 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Meteorologists refer to blue skies all the time. They are much prettier than white or grey skies. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Oppose per Ornithoptera. Completely insignificant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, shoot, we better pull it and put the more significant Azerbaijani embassy shooting back up. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is not backed up by the evidence at hand; reliable sources do discuss the comet in a manner that plainly indicates it is significant. Your assertion doesn't make the sources go away.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting supportI believe to guide public awareness to an astronomical event is in the interest of wikipedia. This they will remember much longer than most of the resisters we post.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)