Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2024

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: Ellen Bernstein
NY Times obit published 5 March. Thriley (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reported on the 29th February. Stephen 23:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A stubby wikibio made up of mostly single-sentence paragraphs. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ramona Fradon
Pioneering woman comic book artist, known for her work in the 1950s and 1960s on Aquaman and Metamorpho. Article is brief but in good shape.
 * Unreferenced bibliography, which is probably too detailed in any case. Stephen 22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now The article’s mostly in good shape, but the bibliography needs references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Bordwell
American film theorist and film historian. 240F:7A:6253:1:217A:705B:CA1B:1C7D (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has a lot of uncited information, especially the career section, plus there's some information in the lead which doesn't appear in the prose at all (aside from the bibliography but that doesn't really count), which is also uncited and should probably be in the prose since the lead is supposed to be a summary. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda White
Australian Senator. Article is short but well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, a bit brief for my liking but fully-sourced. The   Kip  05:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A little short but good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - good 'nuff ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – robertsky (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) Blurb/RD: Brian Mulroney
Prime Minister of Canada from 1984 to 1993. JM (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely noteworthy enough. Some uncited content in . Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RDs are not evaluated on significance, only on quality. JM (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Should clarify, I meant noteworthy enough for a blurb. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once the CNs are resolved. The article is of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support once cleaned up; would a blurb be worth considering? He was PM of Canada for nearly nine years. The   Kip  23:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A complicated figure, I despise much of the man's politics (while admiring other parts of his political legacy), but he was part of "conservative trio" of UK, US, & Canada politicians of the 1980s (Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher) who greatly shaped world politics of the 1980s. Canuck 89 (Talk to me) or visit my user page  00:16, March 1, 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once citations fixed . PM of Canada for nearly a decade. Responsible for very key domestic developments such as mass privatization (boo), a national sale tax, two failed attempts at constitutional reform, as well as international achievements such as US-Canada free trade, leading the fight against apartheid in the Commonwealth, and overseeing the signing of the Montreal Protocol to save the ozone layer, among others. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation issues that would bar posting seem to have been resolved. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Article has now been given 15 CN tags so if anyone wants to clean those up... JM (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done 5 citations but I'm out of time for now. JM (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 CN tags left (although 2 are for whole paragraphs); a lot closer to being ready. JM (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once citations fixed Concur with above statements on blurb relevance. Flibirigit (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blurb since the manner of his death, which ought to be the qualification for a death-related blurb, is not unusual or newsworthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once citations fixed I agree with with the above statements in support of the blurb DriveAllKnight (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * He Was 84 and I think we all know what that means. To those who still believe in the Mandela/Thatcher standard, though, it should be noted that before he was 84, he was pretty much the Canadian representative of those two "legends". Sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally, sometimes both. Definitely "in their league". Big name, regardless, and should be noticeable enough in RD when ready (besides the citations, it repeats "Mulroney" too often). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once sourcing issues have been fixed. Mulroney is one of the most consequential and influence Canadian PMs in its recent history. Plus I support blurbing former G8/G20 heads of states. I don’t think someone’s age should determine if they get blurbed or not. Plus nine years of PM is noteworthy as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more a matter of the unremarkable way old people tend to go than anything against their ages themselves. Sometimes younger people die naturally, too, and some older people of ways in which readers may reasonably want to stay updated over the next week or two. Nine years is a long time, though, regardless of when it ended. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not so noteworthy in Canada over the last 50 years. Pierre Trudeau did 15 years from 1968-1979 and 1980-1984, Mulroney did 9 years from 1984-1993, Chretien did 10 years from 1993-2003, Harper did 9 years from 2006-2015, and Justin Trudeau's done almost 9 years from 2015-present. Since 1968 we've had more who did 9 years than who didn't. JM (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These five are all noteworthy for pretty much the same accomplishment, despite their differences. Like the Beatles or the Four Horsemen. I'm not saying Mulroney's the Lennon or Flair of the bunch, but it's still impressively long to me, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but support blurb once fixed This article gives a good legacy section (albeit lack of sources) to explain why we should blurb him. Just need better sourcing throughout. --M asem (t) 05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support for Blurb on the merits. However, I concur with the vast majority of comments above that the article is currently not ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The page is quite substantial and is graded B-class and level 5 vital. It has been put on the main page several times before in OTD.  And it has over 200 citations and a huge bibliography.  The idea that it's not good enough for ITN is ridiculous. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would personally avoid using level-5 "vital" as an argument, as that label is applied by a very small set of editors. I agree with wanting to feature people of this level of political significance, though. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is also graded as High importance by multiple projects. It has been edited by over 1,550 different editors and that's quite a lot.  ITN has comparatively few !voters but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Only a one-sentence update. Very limited information on his illness, death, and funeral. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's not just his illness and death. We barely have any information on the past 25 years of his life. I don't think featuring the article in this state would "showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events" or "emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource." ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article has an extensive section After politics (1993–2024) which is over 10Kb and 1600 words of prose.  That's several times larger than the entire article for Feleti Teo whose picture has headlined ITN for four days now even though the population of his small island is less than my local council ward. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; I should've properly read better of course, but I made this comment after searching every single year on the page between 1999 and 2024 and getting practically zero results outside of the References section. Something must be wrong with Safari's search function. I apologize for the confusion, though I do stand by the lack of information on illness, death, and funeral: the actual event we would be featuring. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the death was from natural causes, a one-sentence update is pretty much all we can expect in the immediate. As there is plans for a state furenal, this can be expected to be expanded, but we don't need that in place for a blurb if the rest of the article adequetely is in shape and explains why a blurb is appropriate. — M asem (t) 19:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral now that the illness and death section has been expanded. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Orbitalbuzzsaw: he was very notable during his life, but the death itself was not notable. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nelson Mandela lived a very notable life, but retreated into retirement in his last few years and then died in a very ordinary manner (respiratory disease, #2 most common cause of death). By your logic, would he therefore not get a blurb? It makes no sense to me that "dying in an ordinary manner" makes the passing of an otherwise self-admitted highly notable person ineligible for a blurb. Flipand Flopped  ツ 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not explaining clearer: when I say that the "death itself was not notable", I do not mean that the deaths of major figures who do not die in an unexpected way can never get blurbed. Instead, I would have been more inclined to support this blurb if the death itself was notable, i.e, there was significant coverage of their death on Wikipedia. In the case of Nelson Mandela, I would have almost certainly supported that, as there is a whole page devoted to his death and reactions to it. In contrast, as far as I can tell, there is only a two sentence mention of Mulroney's death on his page. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Mulroney was not nearly as notable as Mandela, which is why Mandela got an entire death article. This classifies as "life as main story" on ITNRDBLURB. Information, at least on his Wikipedia page, is very limited regarding death, funeral, and other proceedings, as well as lacking quality. Pksois23 (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I imagine more info about the funeral will come out soon, all we've got right now is confirmation from Trudeau that he is receiving a state funeral. DriveAllKnight (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per above. Support RD. Pksois23 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Certainly a transformative figure in Canadian politics in the mold of Reagan/Thatcher, with large effects abroad (NAFTA, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and pretty indifferent to whether it's a RD or blurb once fixed. He seems just notable enough for a blurb, but I don't think it would be a crime to just post him as RD. However, I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the death itself must be notable, as it is counter to WP:ITNRDBLURB. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb not just your average politician - transformative figure in Canadian and worldwide politics. His death's widespread coverage stems not from the fact that he died, but because he is a distinctly notable figure. To that effect, The Times of India, Al Jazeera, and the South China Morning Post all did substantive pieces about his legacy and political importance. When a particularly politically influential former leader of a country dies and attracts significant worldwide news coverage, this merits a blurb regardless of individual editors' peculiar view that an ordinary "manner of death" altogether precludes someone's life from being notable. To the contrary, the ultimate bottom line is how well-known the figure was + press coverage: if those indicia strongly point towards notability, then an ordinary manner of death does not necessarily preclude a blurb. Flipand Flopped  ツ 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;I haven't actually checked the quality of the article, so I'll just comment on its blurbworthiness. Mulroney was a highly consequential figure in both Canadian and international politics, besides being the leader of one of the more powerful countries in the world for over a decade. Kurtis (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reminder You may support a death blurb for a person who has died in old age far removed from the events that give them notability. You may also choose to oppose the blurb specifically because the death occurred naturally in old age. There are committed partisans on both sides that like to suggest the opposing view is illegitimate, but both opinions are valid and should/will be weighed in consensus.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, and others who opposed blurb due to quality issues: as of now, there's no citation needed tags. Article seems good in terms of quality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The supreme court appointments section has no sources. There are 2 paragraphs in the after politics section with no citations. There's also some statements scattered throughout the article without sources. I believe the article is not ready yet (at least not for a blurb). 2001:4651:F168:0:905D:8C2F:83B8:23F1 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - Widely reported, and very influential and respected. It says a lot that Justin Trudeau dispatched him, despite the chasm between their two parties, to deal with Trump during the recent trade agreement renegotiations (Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement). Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - when Jimmy Carter passes away, I will of course support a blurb. No difference here. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. Especially given that he is perhaps the one of the least significant US Presidents of the late 20th century, domestically. Alternatively, if we set a precedent here - then surely we must also reject a blurb for Carter - despite his fame at Chalk River. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD The article is sufficient quality for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the article ready? Also, is there consensus to blurb this? BangJan1999 18:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for all the reasons given above. AryKun (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb While not everyone agrees, I see consensus for this to go up as a blurb.  Schwede 66  19:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Hassan Mwinyi
Former president of Tanzania. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment legacy section uncited, honours subsection uncited, 1 CN tag. JM (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm anticipating that this might not gain consensus, but I would consider blurbing Mwinyi... he was the leader of one of the larger countries in Africa for a full ten years, so looked at purely in terms of population numbers ruled over, he'd be a similar case to Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac (whose death we didn't post because of quality concerns, but which would have otherwise been an easy blurb). Obviously in terms of economy size and world status, the leader of Tanzania is less than the leaders of the UK or France, but still worth considering. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, old man dies, a notable life is not a notable death, the usual. JM (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if that's the case, what's going on in the post above this one, in which everyone's supporting away, despite the same situation prevailing? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the two people who voted oppose blurb here, one voted oppose above as well, and I refrained from voting above as the nominator of that RD (I didn't propose the blurb). No one who voted to support the one above also voted to oppose this one, and vice versa. JM (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb since the manner of death was not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb - for the same reason I supported blurbing Canada's PM. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is currently an RD nom. No blurb has been proposed.... yet. --PFHLai (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He Was 98 Served for longer than Mulroney, too, pretty impressive. No Mandela/Thatcher Effect here, but some views on apartheid. I've never heard of him, but I think RD will (eventually) be enough for those who know him to know he died (which is often the point of a death announcement). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The "Legacy" section currently has no prose and no references. --PFHLai (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Legacy" section needs to be in better shape before I determine whether or not I think he should be blurbed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb This article has enough details & references. I’m not sure if he’s notable enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Question to Reviewers: I've tagged the Legacy section with {unreferenced section}. If these unreferenced materials get deleted, would the remaining wikibio pass for RD? --PFHLai (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I found references for the unreferenced stuff & I think it’s ready to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yaya Dillo Djérou
Opposition leader of Chad killed in shooting, significant press coverage and well-sourced article. Jmanlucas (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It looked briefly like the end of one paragraph was uncited, but I checked the source and all the information in the uncited section was contained in source #1. Article quality is sufficient for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article in good shape and certainly big news. I only wish we had more but it’s long enough to qualify, IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Half of this wikibio is about his assassination. The other half is a "Biography" section that lacks basic biographical info such as date and place of birth, upbringing, education and early career. How did he form SCUD and become the leader of the opposition in Chad? This wikibio has a big gap in coverage of the subject's life. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the source confirmed that he was leader of the Chadian opposition and I’ve removed the claim. Chad’s opposition is too fragmented to meaningfully be regarded as having a leader except so far as one is designated in the Assemblée nationale…which was suspended after the CMT’s coup. Docentation (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The biography section before his death has been greatly expanded. Looks like it should be good to go. Jmanlucas (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice expansion thus far. Perhaps a little more to elaborate on his govt posts as shown in the infobox, please? Those dates need to be sourced. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the sources have been covered. I'll happily take any other suggestions on how to improve the page. Jmanlucas (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Remark. I have dealt with some infelicities references-wise; in particular, his date of birth is now sourced, and some bare links have been removed. Docentation (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor Ortiz
Puerto Rican baseball catcher and coach. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support quality sufficient for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Myers
British TV presenter and chef. Article in decent shape, just needs a few refs. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose still missing some references, a few uncited paragraphs. JM (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 23 TV guest appearances unsourced (although all shows have articles). Also another Strictly results table... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed some of the chat show appearances, rest are referenced now.yorkshiresky (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now seems to be fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is any more required there, or is this now ready? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, looks good to me. JM, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. JM (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Virgil (wrestler)
American professional wrestler. 240F:7A:6253:1:E00B:A9D5:6C4C:C0E3 (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, like many pro wrestling pages, it’s in poor shape citation-wise. The   Kip  06:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are three tags on the page esp. lack of citations Pksois23 (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cat Janice
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support no issues preventing posting. JM (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks good quality wise ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nikolai Ryzhkov
Former Premier of the Soviet Union, Politburo, and Russian Senator following the fall of the Soviet Union. Was the last living Premier, and last leader from the final years of the USSR still around. Article may need help, but its also a GA, so maybe not. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Orange tag at the top that needs to be addressed, otherwise looks good. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until orange tag is cleared. Otherwise, article looks ready. Moncoposig (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The tag was added in 2018 with no edit summary or talk page rationale. Not sure this should hold this up if the article otherwise is well-cited. Connormah (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't seem like he said or did much following 2018, minus some random events in 2022 and his retirement. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed tag, there was nothing about it on the talk page and the article had post-2018 information anyway. JM (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be relatively well-cited once orange tag is taken care of. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to two cn's and a partially unsourced awards section. Support as there is now only one unsourced statement. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gödel2200 – I cited the statements that needed citations. I will try to find sources for the awards section, and then I believe this should be good to post… — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article looks just about ready now. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until awards section is cited Pksois23 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved. Only one award is uncited. Ready. Thriley (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support per my additions of sources (mostly from the government). If someone finds out they are unreliable, please ask me to switch this !vote to weak oppose. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 01:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All awards have been cited and consequently all statements are cited. The only question remaining now is reliability, which may be something we need to evaluate before posting. If reliability is not a concern here, I thrust my full support here.<span id="3PPYB6:1709430288176:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 01:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Improved GA ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Mitch McConnell will step down as Senate minority leader

 * Comment tidied up the nomination and added a blurb on behalf of the nominator. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nomination, this is not the sort of news we post at ITN. It won't change the GOP's trajectory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Misleading blurb, he didn't step down. He announced that he would step down in November. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry that would be my fault. No blurb was given in the nomination so I hastily wrote one; corrected now. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - and suggest SNOW close, there is 0 chance this is going to be posted.  nableezy  - 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither head of state nor head of government nor head of the legislature nor even the head of a single chamber of the legislature nor even the party leader; merely the leader of the senate caucus of the minority party. Additionally, merely an announcement, he's not even leaving until November. JM (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close Bona fide nomination, but Mitch's resignation is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and outside of Washington DC. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Truly
Manned Orbiting Laboratory and NASA astronaut. Served as NASA administrator from 1989 to 1992. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Berlin International film festival
Well cited and ITN/R. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article reads well with references. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is well sourced. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This meets our minimum requirements, but there's something odd about the article. The writing is unidiomatic, as if it has been imperfectly translated, and the coverage is unbalanced. There's a huge number of quotes from reviewers, but little on the actual content, and not enough context for readers unfamiliar with the Kingdom of Dahomey or repatriation of artworks. I've done a heavy copyedit but this really needs an expert to expand the first few sections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is fine...but it would be great for an expert or something to cleanup and edit the article as per MOS:FILM Pksois23 (talk) 13:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't the film festival be the targeted article here, since that is what is ITN/R? Citing the recent BAFTA post and typical award ceremonies. If so, that article isn't up to standards. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNAWARDS says that: "Unless otherwise noted, the target article is normally the winner of the award." Because there is no note for the Berlin International Film Festival, I would assume this means the winner should be targeted in this case. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support Target article is fine, but as noted by commenters above, the “Reception” section feels a bit excessive while the “Contents” section feels underdeveloped. The   Kip  20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Lewis
Pretty well sourced, but for the filmography. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The awards section tag bothers me a lil bit, but other than that, the article looks in pretty good shape and is good to go. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is still lingering, but I've gone ahead and marked it as ready. Jessintime (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Filmography half referenced; rm ready.  Spencer T• C 17:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've covered most of the filmography, if someone can take another look.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie de Mel
Sri Lankan politician, former Minister of Finance. Titanciwiki talk / contrib 06:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article seems well-sourced and of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Seems to meet the ITN/RD quality requirements. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sources and content, and formatted the article and citations.
 * Support for reasons cited by User:MtPenguinMonster <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

(On hold) Sweden's accession to NATO
The only remaining formality seems to be deposition of a document and there will be a flag-raising ceremony later this week. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support once the one CN tag is fixed. Article looks ready to go and well-sourced. Moncoposig (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for formal accession While all members of NATO have ratified Sweden's accession, we should wait to post until Sweden formally joins. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until formally completed but clearly an ITN worthy item when that happens. M asem (t) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for formal accession. This took a year longer than expected, waiting maybe one more day shouldn't be that much. Count this as a support on notability once it's finally done. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Suppot but wait until accession. JM (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support after formal accession per Gödel2200. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait until formal accession. This is probably the least significant expansion because the country is completely surrounded by NATO member states.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not insignificant at all. This expansion essentially turns the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake, not to mention the strategic value of Gotland undermines both Kaliningrad and makes the Suwalki gap way more defendable. Not to mention how much easier it has gotten to defend the baltic states too. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's probably the most important given Sweden's long politics of neutrality, Turkey's and Hungary's long opposition to it, and the wider geopolitical picture.
 * Abcmaxx (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sweden’s politics of neutrality is completely irrelevant from a geopolitical viewpoint (it fits well for DYK, though), and we don’t know whether Sweden will meet NATO’s defence guidelines (it seems like half of the member states are non-compliant with the 2% guideline). I don’t object posting this when Sweden accedes, but it’s just filling a gap rather than truly expanding the alliance. For the sake of comparison, Finland’s accession was way more significant because the country shares the longest border with Russia in Europe.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support after formal accession per Kiril Simeonovski & Gödel2200 Ion.want.uu (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Since we posted when Finland joined NATO, it is only fair that we post here too, but Wait until all the processes are formally completed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and wait for formal accession for the reasons discussed above.  Ergo Sum  18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for formal accession, per above. I additionally added altblurb 1 (which I favor over the originally proposed blurb) to match the format for when we posted Finland. DecafPotato (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to wait until accession, at which point altblurb 1 makes way more sense. JM (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for formal accession, per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait per above. Still some minor bureaucratic actions before it’s official. The   Kip  20:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait. Sweden's actual accession to NATO will be far more noteworthy. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 21:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly support once formal accession completed. Any country acceding to NATO is important, and one with a history of neutrality like Sweden perhaps moreso than average, but it's premature before the ink is dry. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note, that probably necessitates a rewrite of the blurb. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an altblurb. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per all above, and note that BBC says the formal accession usually takes "a few days", so I don't see a need to close this discussion given the way consensus looks at the moment (i.e. it will presumably still be on the page when accession happens, any disagreement will have been stated by then, that makes it all nice and smooth for posting or not when it happens without having to open a new discussion). Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Close for now Unfortunately, this will take more than "a few days" since Hungary is once again stalling. The vote from its parlament needs to be signed by the president or speaker of the house, and that will take some days, probably late this week or perhaps early next week. After that, the actual signed documents (no e-mail with this) will be flown to Brussels and Washington for the final confirmation. That usually takes about three days. So it might be better to close this now and open a new discussion when everything is done. The item is ITN-worthy even if our biggest contribution to NATO will just be to provide a shortcut for military advances, and the fact that we are a good weapons manufacturer. It's one of the last slots to be filled in in the NATO patchwork and the end of a very long policy of neutrality. (All of this according to Swedish media sources.) In my own opinion: Don't jinx it with premature declarations! ;-) Cart (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for accession as per above --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support once Sweden formally joins NATO, per above. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mohammad Shtayyeh resignation

 * Support if modified to simply "Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh tenders his resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas." The sources don't say anything about him resigning in protest. PtolemyXV (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and propose altblurb on notability, oppose on quality None of the listed sources claim that the resignation was done in protest, and it's not our place to engage in WP:OR. That aside, the event is certainly notable; however, at the moment it's merely a one-sentence update to the target article, and the PM and government articles are nearly stubs as well. The   Kip  06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb for two reasons: WP:OR on the reason for the resignation per above, and stating "the Gaza genocide" without qualifying that it's treated on Wikipedia as an allegation, not a fact. JM (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. This is probably newsworthy enough and the altblurb looks fine (the original blurb is not as explained). But the articles Mohammad Shtayyeh and Shtayyeh Government are really quite bare at the moment. Endwise (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on notability, oppose on quality shouldn't the Shtayyeh Government be bolded as well given it affects then just as much? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I shifted the target to the resignations, but unfortunately that article at the moment only has a one-sentence update. The   Kip  08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the change of PM of Palestine is not ITN-worthy as it is not the person who has executive authority in the PA, since it is its president. Moreover, as JM points out, the accusations of genocide are still a political manifestation that can be challenged under NPOV. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is covered by the ongoing entry for the Israel–Hamas war. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the government didn’t resign in protest of the war, I fail to see how this is covered by the ongoing item. This is Fatah’s internationally-recognized West Bank government. The   Kip  09:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are numerous ramifications and consequences of the fighting in Gaza. For example, there has been a big hoo-hah about the decisions of the UK Speaker for recent Gaza debates.  That has been prominent news here while Shtayyeh resignation hasn't but so it goes.  It's all covered by the ongoing item. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but we need to separate these links per MOS:SOB. How about Mohammad Shtayyeh (pictured), the Prime Minister of Palestine? Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 in principle, but oppose on quality. There's only a single sentence update in the PNA article and Shtayyeh's is embarrassingly bad. One (or both) of those articles is going to need some major work to reach sufficient quality to be a bold link. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose in part per Alsor: the prime minister in Palestine does not administer executive power, and I don't think his resignation alone warrants a burb. I would support if this caused the Palestinian State to not be able to function, or something along those lines. But both of the articles for Mohammed Shtayyeh and the Palestinian National Authority are certainly not ready. They each only have a single paragraph on this event, and do not say anything about its aftermath. The latter article also has sourcing issues throughout. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support on notability, oppose on quality The linked articles need to be improved if this is to be posted. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1 or 2 on notability, oppose on quality This seems notable enough to post, but the quality needs to improve. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - from the Reuters article, "The Palestinian Authority exercises limited governance over parts of the occupied West Bank but lost power in Gaza following a factional struggle with Hamas in 2007" -- which suggests that this is not a big deal. Banedon (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the PA is the internationally-recognized Palestinian government and holds power over about half of Palestinian territory; this isn’t like the collapse of a recognized government-in-exile with no real power (a la Afghanistan). The   Kip  20:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Prime Minister is not the head of state or the most powerful office in Palestinian politics. As well as that, I haven't seen any sources that this resignation was in protest of the Hamas War. If Abbas resigned, that would definitely be notable, but the Head of Government of a barely functioning state is iffy PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability, not convinced by the above arguments that it isn't notable because the Palestinian Authority has "limited governance" or is a "barely functioning state", we're not here to judge how powerful states must be to be relevant. We recently blurbed Tuvalu, which has a lot less population than the parts of the West Bank controlled by the PA, so that shouldn't really be an argument. Still, the PM doesn't administer the executive, so notability isn't 100% guaranteed either. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ole Anderson
American pro wrestler and legendary member of The Four Horsemen. Article’s in better shape than most wrestlers but still needs work. The  Kip  01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article definitely needs work before it goes up. Far too many CN tags. Moncoposig (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For a general RD, sure, needs work. But "better shape than most wrestlers" is also a repeatable accomplishment in its own little right. Look at Virgil (wrestler) or (from the Long Long Ago) Ed Gantner. The former is working hard and the latter is hardly working. Anyway, I'm Waiting for RadioKAOS to weigh in before voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Peetah

 * Opppose 3 CN tags in the first section, 4 of 5 other sections totally unsourced, and the fifth section mostly unsourced. JM (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And per DarkSide830, it's not a bio article either, which I somehow didnt notice, so it doesn't qualify; recommend close. JM (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a biographical article. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We allow such articles when the person is mostly described as part of a group. However in this case, I beg whether notability of the one member applies here (eg ITNRD doesn't apply)<span id="Masem:1708979462109:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, if there was a section about each member maybe I could be swayed, but Peetah Morgan is only mentioned specifically as being a member of the group in general, and in a one-sentence update saying he had died. That's not RD material either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Darkside: Not much information about Peetah. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Darkside and JM. There being only two sentences about Peetah Morgan means this is not a biographical article about him, meaning this is not RD. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Salah Larbès
Former Algerian footballer, needs expansion from French article. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now needs expansion, as the nominator says. JM (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd expand from the French article myself, but the French article lacks sourcing. Moncoposig (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Tep Vong

 * Supreme Patriarch of Mahanikay Buddhism in Cambodia, informative article.
 * Oppose first two sections of biography are unsourced, honours section is unsourced. JM (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jacob Rothschild
Banker and Rothschild Family member. Article needs some work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sourcing needs a little work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Pankaj Udhas
Noted Singer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more citations. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister of Tuvalu
Elected unopposed by parliament, which is the first time this has happened in Tuvaluan history. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The target article should be the election page not the prime minister-elect which I have fixed already (correct me if I am wrong). Support as article is well-cited and I don't see glaring issues...could someone with more experience with the MOS figure out the chain of citations present in the election article. Pksois23 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well sourced and of generally good quality. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Gödel2200. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Unsure of the sourcing for the results table. The Feleti Teo article is fine, the PM article is undersourced. JM (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support ITNR event and article is solid quality. The   Kip  19:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced and worthy Setarip (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Late oppose Article is boring and poorly written overall''' Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * “Boring” isn’t a valid reason to oppose, but care to elaborate on the other point? The   Kip  01:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stinks of promotional language, has too much passive voice, and at least two glaring typos. Doesn't really matter at this point. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that we're not currently using an encyclopedia anyone can edit where those issues can be fixed by people who notice them. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be better to have a picture of the lunar lander than a new leader of a country that's the size of a small town. The lunar lander is more novel/interesting to most readers. 1779Days (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually the top blurb is the one that gets the picture. The proper place to discuss which blurb gets the photo would probably be ITN talk. JM (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb or RD: Aaron Bushnell

 * Wait until his death is confirmed. If/when it is, the article looks ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as I think on this own this does not qualify as an RD. This would need to be posted as a blurb as if it were a non-RD news event as the decedent did not have their own article prior to their death. But that being the case, this is still a timely event of high encyclopedic interest, drawing attention to the impacts of this conflict beyond just the war itself. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Death is not yet confirmed, best wait until confirmation of death. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BBC has just confirmed his death: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68405119 GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Another police officer approached the scene, aiming a gun at Bushnell off-camera and ordered him to "get on the ground" multiple times is not the kind of claim we can leave without a source. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Support anything -- Aaron Liu (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this seems like it's going to fail, I'm changing to strong support, per my comment to JM below. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as RD agreeing that since Bushnell was not a notable person with his own article prior to his death. I would oppose this as its own blurb as well since the death is still unconfirmed (per the article) and there are cn tags ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think being notable in life is actually a requirement. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, WP:ITNRD has no requirements whatsoever, it operates as a loose guideline of "may's" and "should's" and "possibly's", but the relevant section is An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article. The current consensus interpreting this guideline is that if the article is not just the subject's name but rather the name and event ("self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell"), then it is not a biographical article/biography of a living person. Under the current policy, if the article were named just "Aaron Bushnell", it would violate WP:BLP1E as the subject is only notable for this one event. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't find the consensus discussion. Would you kindly link it? Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any consensus discussions, but I always read biographical Wikipedia article as meaning an article about a person and not an event, and the last two times that an event article was nominated, it failed on the basis that it was not about a person (the death of a Taylor Swift fan at a concert, and the execution of a man using inert gas). JM (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO it depends on how much biography. This well-written article clearly wouldn't be blurb-worthy and has a substantial section for biography, so I say it wouldn't hurt to just post his name under RD, especially since, unlike the two articles you mention, the identity of the subject is actually important. We shouldn't oppose this just because generally such articles are notable because of something other than the identity of the victim. Plus, a lot of people are probably looking for the article about it (V22 search apparently hasn't indexed it yet), so this satisfies all of ITN-purpose IMO. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Death has been confirmed, *Support.  nableezy  - 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I added a blurb to the nom, given the wide international coverage I think this merits inclusion. See for example, and each of these is taken from the front page of each source, NYT, BBC, Times of Israel, Le Figaro (French), Al Jazeera (Arabic).  nableezy  - 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD WP:ITNRD specifically says that if the article is a "biographical" article, then it is RD. The listed article only has a very short background section outside of the death (for example, it doesn't say when he was born), meaning I don't think the current form of the article is RD. In addition, there are two cn's. If this gets nominated for a blurb, I will reconsider notability there. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive add a blurb to the nomination.  nableezy  - 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding the article. I'm not sure if this reaches notability requirements for a blurb, although if it inspires wide-spread protests or significant changes in the US then I would support doing so. As the nominator I vote Wait on a blurb, but I still support a RD as I don't see any restriction against pages created for notable or exemplary deaths. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD says the subject needs a biographical Wikipedia article, and this article, being about a death, is an event article. The last two times an event article was nominated, the nomination failed for that reason (Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith and Death of Ana Clara Benevides). JM (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for blurb I will support on notability provided one of the following happens: the event causes protests or other such events to occur; or if this is the first ever self-immolation of an active-duty US service member. The second point was previously an unsourced claim in the lead of the article, which has since been removed. If protests occur, we should mention them in the blurb, and if this is the first self-immolation of an active duty US service member, we should also mention that in the blurb. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD per WP:ITNRD and oppose blurb on notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on significance. Oppose RD because the individual is not notable. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD because this is not a bio article so doesn't qualify. JM (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also oppose blurb on significance. JM (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per WaltCip. Oppose RD due to notability issues. Davest3r08 > : )  (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD per Gödel. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * support, wide international coverage DMH223344 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both per above. The   Kip  19:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The significance of this incident is still an open question and will become clearer over the week. JDiala (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Nominator Comment I decided to open Template:Did you know nominations/Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell instead as I'm not sure if it would fit a blurb, and it seems like most are opposed to a RD on prior precedent. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s probably a good solution given the issues here; the current hook is adequate but Godel’s notes on significance may make for solid alt-hooks. The   Kip  01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose both per JM. And I'd classify it as already in the scope of ongoing. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It may be only my ideology--but we shouldn't have to wait for material results (as in protests) to declare if something is notable enough for ITN. Our duty is to post the most significant of news events into the ITN section. This clearly fits that shoe. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability, for two reasons:
 * Merely that an otherwise non-notable man publicly killed himself for political reasons and has joined the list of political self-immolations is not sufficiently significant for posting at ITN. This is not the first political self-immolation of a current or former U.S. military member in recent memory (one occurred in 2016 in protest of the VA), nor is it the first self-immolation in protest of military policy to have occurred in recent memory (one occurred in 2014 after Japan began to adopt a more aggressive military posture), nor is the first to have occurred in recent memory in a protest relating to human rights (this sort of thing has been frequent in Tibet; see Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China for more information on the >100 such cases since 2009). Self-immolations catch headlines, but in the grand scheme they don't tend to be that significant. This self-immolation is getting attention because it relates to the war in Gaza, but if this reason alone is why this is getting a nom then is already covered under ongoing. Additionally, we have kept much more significant things (such as the sentencing of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny to the penal camp where he would later die) off of ITN, and I don't see why this act of suicide would be so significant as to merit inclusion here.
 * This does not meet WP:ITNRD; the article is not a biography, but an article on an event.
 * — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD - this can't be in RD, he has no standalone article and had no article at all before the event. I also oppose on notability. We've never blurbed other self-immolation incidents, why this one? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How many do you think there are? And in hindsight Mohamed Bouazizi 100000% should have been blurbed.  nableezy  - 03:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Before comparing Bushnell with Bouazizi, it’s better to take a look at Tunisian revolution and Arab spring. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as blurb, oppose as RD per WP:ITNRD. Death has been confirmed and the incident is receiving international coverage; additionally, I don't find arguments of "this other incident/event wasn't blurbed, so therefore this incident/event shouldn't be blurbed" convincing. — Matthew  / (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. Unknown guy commits suicide. No. Shanes (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD as not a biographical article, oppose blurb on notability; suicides are sadly very common, and there is nothing particular about this suicide that would make it notable other than perhaps the method, which is rare but not unheard of. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not independently notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Weak Oppose per Masem (below) as standard nomination. RD isn’t going to happen, because ITN guidelines are clear about no standalone article/BLP existed before the event (even though the Draft:Aaron Bushnell is coming along nicely). I quickly counted approximately 6 or 7 Support votes; 10 to 12 Oppose; 3 or 4 Wait votes. Meanwhile 300,00 page views of Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. So clearly this is by any definition In the News. Some of the oppose votes are merely “Crystal Ballers” pontificating or speculating on the larger cultural and historical dimension to all this. Why? Why? I ask again: why? That’s not our job. Our job here is to proofread the relevant article, and if it’s up to standard decide on our vote: Support or Oppose. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That draft was denied because of the existence of the event article. Per BLP1E it's probably not going to pass. I agree with the rest of your points though. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both as an RS and as standalone news item. On the latter, one person dying as a form of protest is not ITN news (and I question it's appropriateness per NEVENT) In terms of RD, this is a person that would not have been mutable without their death, which means we should not have an article about the person in the first place per BLP. M asem (t) 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well Masem, clearly you’ve devoted many years keeping ITN up to standard. I’ve only been around here for a few months, so in deference to you I changed my vote above to weak oppose. And because your reasons make sense in terms of ITN guidelines. So I get it. But I’m kind of disappointed that ultimately this won’t be supported on ITN for reasons that, frankly Masem, in some instances above come across as cavalier and cynical. And with all due respect, this is not as you have characterized it: “one person dying as a form of protest.” Bushnell performed the ultimate protest, the ultimate sacrifice. “I fear that the deep-seated cynicism in the US and Israeli governments and the cavalier attitude of the mainstream media will effectively give carte blanche to Biden and Netanyahu, who will continue ignoring all calls for a cease-fire and will very soon “cancel” the memory of Bushnell’s sacrifice.” Trauma Novitiate (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to promote any type of political or idealogical causes outside the free disimination of information. We have the Gaza situation in ongoing already and there's so much happening in regards to both pori Israeli and pro Palenstein actions that the self immolation of one non notable person as part of said protests isn't a major factor in the overall situation. It's gotten a burst of coverage from media but that's a systematic bias that we at ITN try to avoid. M asem (t) 21:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as standard nomination. Is a historic protest. David8a (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * historic? _-_Alsor (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well I agree that this event is currently is In the News but this protest is not blurb worthy and self immolation as a protest is not that uncommon as dozens of Tibetans have done it in past few years.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 19:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Red-tailed hawk. Support RD per the precedent that Brianna Ghey was listed as an RD when the “Murder of Brianna Ghey” article was still at “Killing of Brianna Ghey”. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD with a bit of IAR for article that is not a bio but does contain biographical information - because people will be searching for information about him in light of the self-immolation and there is sufficient information at the article that I feel it meets the spirit of posting to RD - and I oppose blurb as I do not think it meets the level for an event for ITN. It is in the news, but it is a response to (something in ongoing) something that is getting a lot of responses, and though it is a very extreme response, we cannot post every individual protest action. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD since the airman's death is only notable because of its relevance to the Israel-Hamas War as an act of protest, not because the airman is himself notable. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ITNPURPOSE is to showcase quality articles and provide a shortcut for current events readers might be searching for, so I don't think such is that needed. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose both per Abcmaxx. Unusual case, but doesn't meet the ITN criteria. It would work at DYK though, and I see a nomination is already underway there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that DYK may work for this. Unfortunately this ITN nomination is stalling and will be stale. Thanks for pointing towards the DYK nomination. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a notable enough event to rise to the level of ITN. Also covered by ongoing, arguably. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 21:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD as not meeting the criteria, weak oppose on blurb as it still made the news to a level but doesn't rise to the notability we'd expect. Plus one could argue it's covered by Ongoing, but seriously, we'd need a good discussion on what is and isn't covered by it in general. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's a dramatic protest by a single person, but still a protest by a single person. Banedon (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think a single suicide, in protest, meets the notability for a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose blurb - Per above. Weak as I think the media coverage of this has been to a large extent, but I feel posting a single act of protest, especially suicide, would set a bad precedent. Would we have blurbed Thích Quảng Đức in Vietnam, I wonder? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Maryam Nawaz
<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support BLP is well sourced, updated and ready. As the first woman to hold this position in the country's history is indeed significant. IMO, she, as CM, may have more power and influence than the Prime Minister this time but I'm not really sure if this ITN worthy hence weak support. --Saqib (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also believe that her governance of the country's most populous province (having population of 130 million people), will remain under intense scrutiny, comparable to that of the PM. --Saqib (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral, willing to be convinced - I'm not uniformly against publishing internal political stories. This does feel a bit similar to the First Minister of Northern Ireland case which prompted so much debate recently. But I would like to understand the reasoning better before making a firm !vote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons for this. Firstly, she is the inaugural female to assume the position of CM in any province of Pakistan. Secondly, as Saqib mentioned earlier, she may amass greater influence in Pakistani politics over the next five years than the Prime Minister. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 12:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To the first, this would be more remarkable if there had not already been a female prime minister of Pakistan. To the second, what she may do in the future is irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose As GenevieveDEon pointed out, there has already been a female Prime Minister of Pakistan (Benazir Bhutto, who served twice). With this in mind, I do not believe this election is notable enough in and of itself. I would only reconsider if it brings about a very significant shift in policy. That being said, the article for Maryam Nawaz does not indicate the election brought about a large change in policy, so I will oppose unless this is changed. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. The article is good, but this is relates to a nation's internal politics, as important as the Punjab province is. I may reconsider if this ends up being of international or large internal significance. Moncoposig (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on significance. There was already a female PM of Pakistan, a CM is a lower level than a PM in Pakistan. JM (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it’s not quite as significant when the country as a whole already had a female PM. The   Kip  19:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Godel2200. We've seen three Muslim women heads of government across the globe (Haseena, Zia in BD and Bhutto in PK), this is really not internationally significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Benazir Bhutto was PM in Pakistan for about five years in the 1990s, and was the first woman elected to lead Pakistan. Nawaz's achievement is significant for her political career, and for women in Punjab, but I don't see this as novel inasmuch as the PM is a much more senior position. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gabriela Grillo
Legendary German Olympic gold medalist in dressage in 1976, influential in leading the family business and voluntary service on the board of foundations. So far, only the medals were in the article. I will add more obits, there are plenty, but think it's good enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support well-cited. Could be clearer on explicitly mentioning the infobox medals in the prose though. JM (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Charles Dierkop
240F:7A:6253:1:C812:ADCD:57DC:A1E0 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Partial filmography and television credits sections need sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose more than 2 days later and filmogaphy and television sections still both totally uncited. JM (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Liverpool Win EFL Cup
Heatrave (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if we're being polite, this is the third biggest football honour in England. There's even a not insignificant point of view to abolish it, like France did with theirs. Good anyway for Liverpool and their fans, who have seen their team win much better trophies recently at any rate. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Minor domestic competition. We already post five club football events each year (see WP:ITNR), more than almost any other sport, and if even if we expanded that to the top 20 the League Cup wouldn't be among them. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, its the Energy Drink Cup so its not on WP:ITNSPORTS. That is all.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The event is a domestic tournament, and is only a qualifying tournament for the UEFA Conference League. If this does get posted, the blurb needs to mention and link to the final match, as that is the only match which includes any sort of prose about the actual play. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it’s a lower-level domestic cup, doesn’t quite meet ITN standards. The   Kip  19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Nicholl
English born footballer who played for Northern Ireland. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as article looks good and cited. Pksois23 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well-sourced and is of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support well-cited. JM (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Patrick Cormack

 * Oppose woefully undercited. The   Kip  19:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3 days later, still under-cited. JM (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zong Qinghou

 * Oppose for now There is one CN tag in the article. It should be suitable to post once the claim is either sourced or removed. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The citation has been fixed! Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - No glaring issues and everything looks good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pksois23 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Micheline Presle

 * Comment. I've added a lot of references, but finding more may be problematic.  Even the Wikipedia articles on the films she appeared in (most of which are French) don't have much sourcing within them.  So help would be appreciated.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some citations from the BFI Collection Database. There are a lot of her filmography (133 hits). It is a little bit tedious bc I haven't found a way to get a link for all the actress filmography, just a results list from a script after clicking her name in one of her movies. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a lot of citations. There are over 100 sources now.  Should be GTG.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Alexcalamaro Your British Film Institute link gives 14 pages of credits, with approximately 9 or 10 films per page.

1La DAME AUX CAMÉLIAS C.C.F.C. (Production company), Raymond Bernard (Director)

1953 (Release) - France - Italy - Film - Fiction -

Articles2Blind Date Independent Artists [Production] Limited (Production company), Joseph Losey (Director)

1959 (Copyright) - 1959-09-21 (Release) - United Kingdom - Film - Fiction -

Film / Video materialDigital Posters / DesignsDigital StillsScripts / Documents / EphemeraArticles3Les DERNIERS JOURS DE POMPEI Salvo D'angelo (Production company), Marcel L'Herbier (Director)

1948 (Release) - France - Italy - Film - Fiction -

ArticlesBooks4Le DIABLE AU CORPS Transcontinental Films (Production company), Claude Autant-Lara (Director)

1947 (Release) - France - Film - Fiction -

Film / Video materialDigital StillsScripts / Documents / EphemeraArticlesBooks5Le DIABLE ET LES DIX COMMANDEMENTS Mondex Films (Production company), Julien Duvivier (Director)

1962 (Release) - France - Italy - Film - Fiction -

Film / Video materialScripts / Documents / EphemeraArticles6L' ASSASSINO Titanus (Production company), Elio Petri (Director)

1961-04-01 (Release) - Italy - France - Film - Fiction -

Film / Video materialDigital StillsScripts / Documents / EphemeraArticlesBooks7Le BAL DU COMTE D'ORGEL Les Films Marceau (Production company), Marc Allégret (Director)

1970 (Release) - France - Film - Fiction -

Articles8Le BARON DE L'ÉCLUSE Filmsonor (Paris) (Production company), Jean Delannoy (Director)

1960 (Release) - France - Italy - Film - Fiction -

Articles9La CHASSE À L'HOMME Filmsonor (Paris) (Production company), Edouard Molinaro (Director)

1964 (Release) - France - Italy - Film - Fiction -

Articles10BEATRICE CENCI Franco London Film (Paris) (Production company), Riccardo Freda (Director)

1956 (Release) - Italy - Film - Fiction -

Articles 1


 * Alexcalamaro Thanks for finding that. I did use it as a cited source in the article.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated.


 * Support, good job User:7&amp;6=thirteen ! Article is ready to post. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support great job Abcmaxx (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kumar Shahani
Indian film director and screenwriter. 240F:7A:6253:1:C812:ADCD:57DC:A1E0 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article is well-sourced and of decent quality. MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted late. --PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenneth Mitchell (actor)
Canadian actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:115F:E0C1:FA0D:4EF5 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography needs sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Eric Mays

 * Oppose Death section is currently unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources for the death from here to the article. I still oppose for now since the article still has an orange tag for cleanup. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too many uncited statements. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there aren’t enough sources and there is really only a controversy and death section, cleanup tag needs to be addressed Pksois23 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is just controversies, and contains nothing about his early life, career outside of the city council, election(s) to the council, or personal life. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an actual biography as currently written. Also, his antics on the city council had made him a minor national celebrity.  The M-Live source cited above touches on this, while the article as written fails to do so. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A biography of a politician ought to tell us what party he represented (or if he was an independent), and what his political positions were. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose more than 4 days since nomination and still tagged. JM (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Vyacheslav Lebedev

 * Oppose Orange tags on every section. Moncoposig (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Needs more sources. Suonii180 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose still full of tags 5 days later. JM (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Could be cleaned up but somebody must do it. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Bowles

 * Oppose Citations needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Added "citation needed" tags Abcmaxx (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources added to address missing citations. Paul W (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support issues addressed. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jackie Loughery
240F:7A:6253:1:C812:ADCD:57DC:A1E0 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced filmography. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Filmography has remained unsourced. IMDb, which is currently used as a source in the prose, needs to be replaced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Germany legalises cannabis use

 * Weak oppose While the first major country in Europe to legalize recreational use, it’s not the first overall - Luxembourg and Malta beat them to it. As such I’m not quite sure if it meets ITN standards as a result. The   Kip  19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would point out that Malta and Luxembourg are very small countries though, especially compared to an industrial and economic powerhouse of 80 million people. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability Germany is the third EU country and the second G7 country to legalize recreational use. Given that there have only been nine countries to legalize recreational use (according to our table), I think this is notable enough. That being said, we should either reword the blurb, or wait until 1 April 2024, as the legality doesn't take effect until 1 April 2024. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, definitely an unusual and notable event. Agree that it should be either reworded or (preferably) moved to 1 April, plus it's a good day to have "fun" topics like this in the news rather than things like wars and stuff. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Gödel. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. This would be the third country in Europe to legalize the use of recreational cannabis, and this particular public policy doesn't have broader implications for the world commmunity. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the first medium-size country in the global north, and April Fool's. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of size or in terms of population? Canada has 40 million people and legalized it in 2018. JM (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Canada's big. Germany's the first one in Europe that isn't small to have legalized it. Plus it's good April material. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. I believe this is a big development, and this is much different situation to Luxembourg and Malta given the size and scale of those countries. We posted Canada's legalisation, and it's important to note this isn't decriminalisation like in Czechia or Portugal. I have added citation needed tags to the nominated article, however surely the target article should be German cannabis control bill? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks good and is more relevant Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2 and article2 to reflect the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until April 1. That's when the event actually happens, and we'll have time to spruce up the article in the meantime. Cannabis in Germany might be another article worth featuring here, and gives more historical perspective for the past few years! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Golden Richards
1970's National Football League wide receiver. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citations needed – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still at least 6 paragraphs with {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flaco

 * Support Looks ready. RIP. Thriley (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support great article. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support Significant death and article is great. Could even post in news. Pksois23 (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Everything is well sourced and article is good. Ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. It is a travesty that RD for a person with accomplishments will be replaced by owl.
 * Personally, I am opposed for RDs for animals or trees. I don't think it should be posted here. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , as with anything, you are welcome to raise the issue at the talk page. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is not treated as a factor in RD nominations, votes should be instead based on the article quality alone. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shinsadong Tiger

 * Comment there's a few "citation needed" tags that need addressing. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx I have addressed the tags by adding sources. Lightoil (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, the article is notable, has sufficient citations and is long enough. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Luminous Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk)</b> 02:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGF on non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Biddle
Recently created article. Served 32 years in the Alabama Legislature. Kafoxe (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Manohar Joshi
Former Maharashtra Chief Minister and Lok Sabha Speaker. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now There are several unsourced claims in the article. They should be improved before posting. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Article needs some work, but it looks almost ready otherwise. Moncoposig (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Added "citation needed" tags. Far too many unsourced statements. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose full of CN tags. JM (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kent Melton

 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edith Ceccarelli
Oldest person in the United States. 240F:7A:6253:1:115F:E0C1:FA0D:4EF5 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Kinda short, but its sourced well and I don't imagine there's much more to add. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. I added a couple of sentences. Word count now at 324, comfortably Start Class now. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Guy Talbot

 * Abcmaxx (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support nice work! Abcmaxx (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Playing career section and the Awards and accomplishments section are still unsourced. So are the tables of stats. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With 500+ words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. I see no glaring gap in coverage of the subject's life. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots, and spot checks found no problems with sourcing. Earwig has no complaints, either. Therefore, this wikibio looks to me to be READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Jesse Baird

 * Support Article is fully sourced. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article sourced and good Pksois23 (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No body has been found, death has not been confirmed. Steelkamp (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you don't necessarily need a body to have a confirmed death, especially given the murder charge. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like his body has been found. Steelkamp (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage with respect to umpiring and TV presenting career compared to death.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A single sentence intro is too short, and there is too much emphasis on recent events. This uneven coverage needs fixing. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article has plenty of details & references. The intro & “Umpiring career” section have been expanded. It’d be nice if there were more details about his TV career, but I couldn’t find them. I don’t think that should be held against the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support well-cited. JM (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-archiving note: Posted using IAR.  Schwede 66  01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Roni Stoneman
240D:1A:4B5:2800:9082:75E:4080:CB47 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, parts of the article are unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still multiple {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Odysseus landing
Posted alt2. Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support Beat me to the punch. Anyways, first commercial lunar landing as well as the first United States lunar landing in over 50 years. Article still needs to be updates for the landing, however - the landing was confirmed only a few minutes ago.  q w 3 r t y  23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support obviously an immense achievement This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability In addition, the article seems to already be of sufficient quality to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability (but wait) Article looks good enough, but there are a bunch of cite errors which need to be sorted out. I would also like to see how the event develops, but this deserves to go on the main page. ❤History  Theorist❤  00:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but added alt1 as the part about "first US landing since..." implies that this is a formal US gov't landing. Better to ID the company behind it. Article appears good to go. --M asem  (t) 01:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Major event, first US landing in 50+ years and first commercial landing. Article looks good to go. Agree with Masem over altblurb1, but reworded it for clarity in altblurb2Pksois23 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 I believe alt1 is the clearest of the blurbs. The article also looks ready to go. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 Article looks ready to go. Alt 1 highlights the significance of the event more. Moncoposig (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 or Alt3 It looks like the article’s good enough. Alt2 & Alt3 have better wording than the other blurbs. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is this ready? Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Bulla Loca mine disaster
Mining disaster in Venezuela. Fifteen officially dead and many more injured. NoonIcarus (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose a terrible AI generated article. Stephen 22:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose bad English. JM (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article’s too short & needs copy editing. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Savident
240F:7A:6253:1:B084:5D4:5A0:2C6D (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to two cn's and an unreferenced filmography section. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section is still unsourced. The main prose still has a couple of {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Pamela Salem
British actress. 240F:7A:6253:1:4976:6327:DB15:65E5 (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks good Pksois23 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to an unreferenced filmography section. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article needs a cleanup, it's almost just a big long incoherent list bundled into a paragraph. It's also missing a lot of citations. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jayo Archer
Death of a prominent motorcross rider who was also an X Games medalist. Abishe (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Article is well-sourced but somewhat lacks quality in prose. Pksois23 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is fully sourced, and there are no more major prose issues. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This new wikibio currently has only 250 words of prose. It's a little stubby. Anything else to write about this guy, please? A few sentences may push it more comfortably into start class. --PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hydeia Broadbent
Appears to be well-sourced. Mooonswimmer 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems overall well-sourced, one unsourced statement about a book and a TV appearance. JM (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added citations for these both facts. Seems ready to me (just a non-RS Wordpress citation for her sonority). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seniority? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorority. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - now fully cited. Blythwood (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is currently an orange tag for the single-sentence intro being too short. Does anyone want to expand the intro? --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it. I think it's ready to publish now. Blythwood (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the expanded intro. --PFHLai (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ewen MacIntosh
240D:1A:4B5:2800:CD0D:DA83:68EA:1330 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - article isn't huge but it looks long enough. No issues with citations ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No major or glaring issues, fine article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Nuristan landslide
Needs expansion. Ainty Painty (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: This bears no significance at all. Article is also a complete stub. Don't just nominate articles for ITN simply because it happened. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good faith nom! Unfortunately, the article is far from ready to be posted, as it is a stub, and while there is no minimum death requirement for posting disasters and accidents, the notability is also a bit questionable. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article is a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom We are not a local disaster report, and the article quality isn't there. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose its a stub Setarip (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment in addition to the above, given that Ainty Painty also created it, I would remind them about WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT, and the fact that not all natural disasters are necessarily going to have long-term notability. We do have List of landslides where these can be documented but as that list shows, not every landslide has a standalone article. Creating a stubby news article on something that may not be easily expanded is discouraged. --M asem  (t) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the article being a stub. I will also oppose on notability unless the event turns into something far bigger. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability A large landslide with a high casualty rate is notable as evidenced by global coverage. Not all natural disasters are necessarily going to have long-term notability, but given we have multiple reliable global sources covering it this meets notability criteria. I would also like to point out there's nothing wrong in nominating at ITN in order to draw attention to an article needing expansion, especially when it's breaking news. Unfortunately, given its Afghanistan, a notoriously difficult part of the world to find consistent and reliable news for, this may be all we ever get so far; however this shouldn't lessen its notability. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "there's nothing wrong in nominating at ITN in order to draw attention to an article needing expansion"
 * I completely disagree, and I greatly dislike when it occurs. (Note that I'm not commenting on this specific nomination.) The point of nominating an article at ITN is to get an article listed on ITN. Kicking222 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One doesn't exclude the other. Most nominations need work before they are posted, especially recent deaths nominations; thus this is an ideal way to improve articles that otherwise would have been missed. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review NEVENTS. Specifically just because an event gets a burst of coverage in the short term doesn't make it sufficiently notable for WP. That's what Wikinews is for. We want enduring events, and a landslide with a relatively low death toll in a third world country/region just isn't going to get wide coverage.<span id="Masem:1708541403980:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the "third world country/region" part is unnecessary here, as we should work to give coverage to all regions of the world. It's just that this specific event doesn't rise to the threshold of ITN notability. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We do want to cover events from all over the world, and we do have to watch for western biases, but there are events that are the equivalent of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The articles from international sources covering this are extremely short and almost are news-in-brief, compared to other disasters that I've seen from third-world countries that get far more coverage. We sometimes simply cannot support notability of a event if coverage is just lacking, and while we should strive to include such events when the coverage is there, we shouldn't stretch our practices to include them. M asem  (t) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, in this kind of situation the coverage just isn't sufficient sometimes. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An important thing that NEVENTS says However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality still a stub. JM (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as a six-sentence stub. The   Kip  07:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the event is notable, the article is a stub. Moncoposig (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Fali Sam Nariman
Noted Lawyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are still a few unsourced statements throughout the article. Please ping me once they are sourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose 6 unsourced paragraphs/isolated lines. JM (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Still quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Taib Mahmud
Former Chief Minister and Yang Di-Pertua Negeri (Governor) of the Malaysian state of Sarawak. A prominent name in Sarawakian politics as he had formal and informal power over the state for over 40 years. Tofusaurus (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now There are two CNs in the Environmental Policy section. Once those are resolved, this can be posted to RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Section has been fixed. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support All prior sourcing issues appear to have been fixed, and there are no glaring issues regarding the article's quality. Good for ITN/RD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Major figure in Malaysian politics and perhaps its worst kleptocrat since the 1970s. gavre  (al. PenangLion) (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * notability is not treated as a factor in RD nominations, votes should be instead based on the article quality alone. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Despite this, the article is sufficient for a pass judging by article quality itself. gavre  (al. PenangLion) (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Call for action on whether article should be posted. Tofusaurus (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Abdul Taib Mahmud is currently unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Tofusaurus (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ameen Sayani

 * Oppose mostly unsourced. JM (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Needs quite a bit of sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ihar Lednik

 * Wait - as nominator stated, the article was created very recently, and is short, sparsely referenced and orphaned. Would support if these issues get fixed quickly enough. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 12:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you take another look at the article? I think the issues have been fixed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready. A stubby 260-word wikibio with no sources to support the subject's dates of birth and death. --PFHLai (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article’s been expanded & there are sources for his date of birth & his approximate date of death. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Chrysler Halcyon
⚒️ ★MinecraftPlayer★321 ⚒️ Let's Chat! 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose No blurb, no article, no notability. MyriadSims (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, there's an article. Good faith nom, but I still *Oppose MyriadSims (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Good faith nom, but no blurb has been specified. If it was something along the lines of the title of the provided source, I would oppose on notability. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Efeso Collins
Sitting MP for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, first sitting MP to die in 11 years. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support : This is a tragedy and is significant, given his longstanding contributions to Auckland as a world city, as also for the reason stated above. At the very least, he should get a "recent death" mention. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Preemptive oppose blurb since he's nowhere near the level of Pinera, the last guy to get a blurb and the death doesn't appear to be notable as an event in itself. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a "recent death" - Collins was an extremely prominent Samoan New Zealander, and alongside Kris Faafoi one of the most high profile Tokelauan people in politics (outside of the Tokelauan government itself). --Prosperosity (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - friendly reminder that notability/relevancy isn't treated as a factor in RD nominations, and that !votes should be instead based on the article quality itself. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 08:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good quality article, with lots about his life, mentoring, charity work, the impact he had on society (he played a role in getting Police Ten 7 cancelled), the evolution of his political beliefs, his run for the mayoralty (which sparked a serious debate on the terrible turnout rate in NZ local elections), and the rest of his 25-year political career. It also has a high quality and handsome photo of him, beautiful video of him being celebrated by Sāmoan dancers after giving his maiden speech. I would definitely Support - this is a tragedy for Auckland as a city, and the nation is in mourning. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if the bloke who was in Strictly Come Dancing or the guy from Slap Shot gets mentioned instead of Efeso, it would be in very poor taste. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to dismiss other RD nominations. As the nomination template states, every recently deceased person, animal or organism with a Wiki article is relevant enough to be posted, regardless of what they were known for. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Ready. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support : cloventt This is a tragedy and is significant, given his longstanding contributions to Auckland as a world city, as also for the reason stated above. At the very least, he should get a "recent death" mention.  Article is well sourced and in order.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you ping somebody in each reply. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Windsor
2A02:C7C:9241:7B00:8C48:47B6:6279:1761 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article is of sufficiently good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still a small amount of unsourced material, unfortunately. Does every entry in the Strictly tables have to be sourced? Also there seems to still be some disagreement over his date of death, which does not seem to have been published anywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Date of death now confirmed as 20 February (see The Times obituary above). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Multiple unreferenced paragraphs and sections Stephen 05:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Preemptive oppose, but only on the grounds that I strongly feel that Efeso Collins is more worthy of being mentioned. New Zealand is in mourning for him, and by all accounts, the United Kingdom isn't in mourning for Robin Windsor. I'm not dissing him - he seemed like a great guy and his charity work makes him admirable. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure we can do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realise we can post both of these, right? We don't have to post these one at a time. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RDs are not evaluated on significance. And also, multiple people are listed on RD at the same time. Right now there are six people there. JM (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs citation cleanup, I added "citation needed" tags, likely can use existing sources to be put in the right places. Many references are are from the official website rather than an independent source and furthermore a lot of them are bare url's. Otherwise good article. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was 28 hours ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe you may wanna WP:ping @Abcmaxx in situations like these. (done it for ya) Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we remove/replace the 2 dead links from the article? Still some bare url's in referencing . Abcmaxx (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. I saw one bare url, are there more? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Am I now supposed to WP:ping @Abcmaxx? Not sure how this works any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If one doesn't respond for a long time, it might be useful to ping. It's not a requirement and simply drags someone's attention. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I did the dead links over 13 hours ago. I'm not sure I know what "a long time " is around here. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well in that case: change to support Abcmaxx (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fully sourced and much improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked about sources for the results tables 4 days ago, but I see that 65.94.213.53 has now kindly peppered the tables with {cn} tags. So perhaps it's time to forget about this for RD. It'll fall of this page in two days anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just looked at Special:Contributions/65.94.213.53. None of those {cn} tags "peppered the tables", but they tagged the prose in Robin Windsor and the bullet-points in Robin Windsor. -- PFHLai (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on one's understanding of pepper. They're all still there and the article was posted regardless. I would have appreciated some kind of response to my question of 4 days previously. Still waiting, in fact. Do all the results need separate sources here, or are they covered by the respective separate articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul D'Amato
Actor with a modest repertoire, but outsized influence due to his scene-stealing appearance in Slap Shot resulting in him becoming the model for the comic book appearance of the character, Wolverine. BD2412 T 15:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article still needs work in terms of tone. Moncoposig (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a rather vague criticism, and one that I have not seen in ITN before. Every statement in the article is cited. Can you provide an example of something in the article that "needs work in terms of tone"? BD2412  T 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been substantially reworked. I believe this !vote can be disregarded as obsolete. BD2412  T 22:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fully sourced, and after reading through it, I could not find any statements I found to be in a questionable tone. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support For BD2412, tone quality is quite an issue for articles that are being nominated for ITN, but this article has no tone issues that I can find. Good referencing and good length. Looks fine to me. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article used many peacock terms ⚒️ ★MinecraftPlayer★321 ⚒️ Let's Chat! 22:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been cleaned up since the nom. Is there any language currently in the article that you can identify as a "peacock" term? BD2412  T 22:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article badly needed a picture so I took care of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article quality is good enough and I see no tone issues ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. In good shape. Perplexed by opinions otherwise. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. Abcmaxx (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andreas Brehme

 * Oppose due to a few unsourced statements, as whole as a wholly unsourced statistics section. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - orange-tagged, and sourcing is rather speratic, with one section - excluding the statistics section - having no citations at all. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced date of birth.  Schwede 66  17:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ira von Fürstenberg
Italian socialite and actress. Death announced 19 February. Thriley (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

*Oppose - 4 CN tags. A bit much, given the length of the article. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Sourcing can still be improved upon, but CN tags have been dealt with. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per bucket of sulfuric acid. Moncoposig (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll look tomorrow. At a glance: much family detail, little film work. The article has her DOD as 18 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have removed unreferenced statements and added REFs to some of the article. Mind giving it a second look? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as improved by User:Fakescientist8000. BD2412  T 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some sources and facts. There could still be more about films, but - without ever training - there was probably not too much to be noticed by reviewers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kagney Linn Karter
Adult film star Kagney Linn Karter dies at age 36. Heatrave (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is generally fine, no major tags or issues to be noted. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No major issues. Mooonswimmer 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and supports. Jusdafax (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - No major issues, sourcing and article quality meets requirements. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, tragic, but ready. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:RSP, it seems AVN and XBIZ are reliable, independent sources. Seems the bio could use a few more cited reliable sources to demonstrate WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Yasmine Gooneratne
She died on 15 February 2024 but her death was reported by Sunday Times only as of today. Unfortunately few sources have reported her demise. Abishe (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - sourcing on some sections of the article seems kind of sparse. Should probably be improved on before posting. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The article has multiple unsourced statements, and likely needs cleanup. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until article is cleaned up. Moncoposig (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is nowhere near ready. Could do with additional headings to give it structure and has many unsourced paragraphs.  Schwede 66  18:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Reviewers needed) RD: Acharya Vidyasagar
Indian Digambara Jain Acharya (Digambar Jain Monk) recognized for his scholarship and tapasya (austerity). 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Several unreferenced statements; also needs copyediting throughout. For example, unclear what "He also drank water only once a day by filling it with his finger." means.  Spencer T• C 15:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael O'Regan (journalist)

 * Comment This new wikibio currently has only 266 words of prose. It's a little stubby. Anything else to write about this guy, please? A few sentences may push it more comfortably into start class. --PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I have expanded it a little, sources are very good though so potential to add more using existing sources; should be good enough to post though. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded the lead, no tags left. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobbie Wygant
American television news reporter, film critic, talk show host. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards
Only thing missing is the In Memoriam, seemingly because it hasn't got a source. Otherwise, good prose update and ref for the winners already there. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On every article about the film awards, the information about nods and noms (e.g. The trio of Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer led the longlists ...) is in the "Ceremony information" section. Shouldn't they be in the "Winners and nominees" section instead? Shouldn't the "Ceremony information" section be named "Ceremony" instead? Is there something I'm missing here? Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, do we really need separate sections for the non-recurring awards? Can't we put them together in the awards table? Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about things like the BAFTA Fellowship, those don't have nominee lists that are publicly known, so it makes sense to keep them outside the table.<span id="Masem:1708299417455:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the table has to only contain always-recurring items. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think ITNC is really the place to be chatting about the format of all the film awards articles Kingsif (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * or maybe, copied. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * From previous awards at ITNR, the lists at the bottom that add up the number of noms and wins needs to be sourced. --M asem (t) 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is of generally good quality and is well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fully-cited and well-written. The   Kip  03:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted with Best Director as the higher level award. Stephen 05:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to point out again that the Statistics section is unsourced, which is what stopped the Emmys from being posted. Either we accept that these are routine CALC and not SNYTH, or this should be pulled until sources are added. --M asem (t) 05:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents, but I've always been in favor of that material being considered under WP:CALC. The info's already right there in the section above, it's just reformatting what's already there. The   Kip  05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the argument for needing sources was because some editors thought that it was unimportant how many noms/wins something or another had, so the sources were there to show it was considered important - and that, with the Emmys, this was brought up because how many noms/wins various networks had was considered particularly unimportant/irrelevant by those editors (or maybe it's because the networks weren't always listed, so it was SYNTH, but the networks was brought up). As it is, I think it is simple CALC as long as it's only for what is listed, so if we're not concerned with that, it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's definitely SYNTH, for exactly the reasons you highlight. Particularly so when there are footnotes explaining why certain listings are deemed ambiguous due to whether or not a rising star award is chosen. Either that section should be chopped (or sourced) or the ITN should be pulled. Particularly so as we've not posted the Emmys for the same reason. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the Emmys it was shown there were sources that listed what got the most noms/wins (though not necessarily to the same degree as in the RSes), and I do think that there is info for that for the BAFTAs, but I still read the Emmy oppose !votes as more a SNYTH issue in terms of adding up those ourselves and possibly making mistakes in that count. M asem (t) 13:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed this deeply controversial section Stephen 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And its back already. M asem (t) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've popped a question on whether these sections are SYNTH or not over at WP:NORN, since it feels we need an answer here.<span id="Masem:1708565670958:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 01:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Uriarte
Basque bishop, recognised for his work for peace during the Basque conflict as mediator between the Spanish government and the terrorist group ETA during the 1999 truce. I have been working on his article today, expanding its content and making sure everything is sourced with RS, so I think it is ready to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No problems I can see Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Bartlett Bunge
American neuroscientist. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, everything is cited and supported. BD2412  T 01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gamini Jayawickrama Perera
Sri Lankan politician, former Minister of Buddha Sasana. Titanciwiki talk / contrib 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Somewhat brief but comprehensive bio, looks fully-cited. The   Kip  03:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - decent sourcing and overall a good article quality. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Johan Galtung
Norwegian sociologist, principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good. Moncoposig (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has major sourcing issues throughout, as well as two nearly unsourced sections. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Many more references are needed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Procter
South African Cricketer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many sections are entirely unsourced. Moncoposig (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable figure in cricket, have improved referencing Kiwichris (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Now the article has been expanded and certain sections are well sourced. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Just removed the last remaining CN tag. Article should be in decent shape now. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 13:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lefty Driesell
Y2hyaXM (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3 CN tags. Moncoposig (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything’s referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags left. The table after the prose needs sourcing, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining -- or perhaps that paragraph needs to be trimmed down to match the available REFs? The table after the prose still needs a source. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything’s referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Russia takes the city of Avdiivka

 * Oppose as this is covered by ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. --M asem (t) 13:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will add that this story is falling below the fold in light of Navalny's death. Perhaps if there was more media spotlights on this story there might be reason to cover it outside ongoing, but for now, I think its that Navalny's death just dominating Russia-based news. --M asem (t) 04:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Covered by ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @2G0o2De0ljust to be clear, when you say covered by ongoing, do you mean it doesnt need to be included because the Invasion of Ukraine is listed in ongoing events? Genabab (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I mean that the Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) is listed in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest SNOW close per Ongoing. Neutral given the potential significance as a relatively unique development. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support While this is also covered by “Ongoing”, I think that blurbing this is justifiable given the high # of casualties & Avdiivka’s potential value as a logistics hub. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Mainly because it's the first notable change in territory since the fall of Bakhmut in May 2023. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the most significant events in the war so far. We've blurbed events in Ukraine of particular significance before even though the item was in ongoing, I think this justifies a blurb as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad close While I still oppose the blurb, the consensus has shifted and doesn't appear as clear-cut as when I suggested the SNOW close, I don't think "partial WP:SNOW" is an appropriate closure. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I'm not sure if reopening will be considered wheel-warring of some sort. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since people are still adding !votes I've unclosed this. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, we can't say "reopening" here, no, this is an unclosing. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this was wheel-warring in any way to "un-close" this. I also believe that despite my objection to blurbing this story this was in no way a WP:SNOW nor was there sufficient time given for everyone to have their say. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's both. I think the two are synonyms. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just joking around, it's funny how the first is more natural but the second has kinda become the Wikipedia jargon one. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I 1st reopened this discussion, the edit summary I made was “Reopening.” b/c I think that’s the most natural way to say it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW continues to be blatantly overused in ITN. It had barely been half a day, and only 4 votes opposing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Half a day, 4 opposes and no supports is enough for SNOW. It's not like one can't reopen it later. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that is absolutely not enough at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide your rationale? Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Half a day and 4 votes isn't merely enough for a foregone conclusion at all Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is enough for SNOW, which, like other parts of WP, isn't permanent or foregone. SNOW means that if there seems to be virtually no chance something will pass, close it. A unanimous oppose and five hours in satisfies that criteria. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5 hours is nowhere near long enough nor are 4 votes unanimous, nor are they enough for that to not be overturned, especially as a lot of nominations concern breaking news and rapidly developing events. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All the votes being 4 opposes is, by definition, unanimous. SNOW does not mean you can't start it again if you are a newer person and do not support it. 5 hours in long enough to make a preliminary close such as SNOW. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was later "partial SNOW closed" after 5 opposes and 3 supports, which was definitely not enough for such a close. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure PrecariousWorlds was talking about my SNOW close, at which point all there were was 4 opposes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgot about the first close, my bad. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - significant shift in the Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you were meant to say Russian invasion of Ukraine? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL, yes. Freudian slip! Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as out of the ordinary in this war. Quite a major victory. I'd suggest some more wording about the strategic significance, though I'm not sure how to word it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also support per Maplestrip that this is a wonderful article. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't a major city like Donetsk or Odesa. Furthermore this was a tactical retreat rather than a decisive military victory. It doesn't mean much militarilly outside of the narrative and propaganda uses either. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "tactical retreat" - is how the Germans sold the retreat from Stalingrad. See also Afghanistan in 2021. Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A retreat is a retreat. A retreat egged on by many artillery strikes to prevent encirclement is a retreat. The city has many tactical things, in that it prevents Russia from using Donetsk as a communications hub and breakthrough point. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that this isn't a military victory, I'm just saying it isn't a particularly significant one. Donetsk still is and will be the main hub die to its significance and size. Avdiivka was lost because Ukraine isn't willing to suffer as many casualties as the Russians are, and ultimately is a small town with very little left in it of any significant military or economic value. Bear in mind Ukraine will say this was a big loss in a push to receive more support in military aid from the West and Russia will claim it's a huge victory because that will drive their propaganda and it's about the only military win they can cling onto since Bakhmut (which also wasn't that significant as it turned out). Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose doubly covered by ongoing. JM (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose we should decide whether we post all "significant developments", or none of them. I'm under the impression that we have historically chosen the latter (some exceptions like the sinking of the Moskva aside ...), in which case we should avoid posting this too. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you have that impression? Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See the ITN/C archives, e.g. and . Banedon (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of these were Pyrrhic but of little tactical significance. I see what you mean though. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It took awhile for reliable sources to confirm exactly what happened in Bakhmut & Mariupol. Also, Bakhmut had little strategic value. I would’ve supported posting the fall of Mariupol & the Russian retreats from Kyiv & Kharkiv if I’d participated in discussions about those events. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. The   Kip  03:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support – Wow what an article, I would be really proud to show this one off on the front-page. A lot of work by a lot of people to write a detailed description of this long 2-year battle, this feels like what WP:ITN was made for. Excellent update the withdrawal and aftermath too. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to refer to WP:ITN and point out that this article matches all four items. Our readership is much better served being shown this article directly, rather than keeping it hidden in a two-sentence paragraph in the long broad war article. Even our article on the Battle of Kyiv wasn't this impressive! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A decisive strategic victory of a years-long battle. I think the comparison to Stalingrad is apt. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't oppose this because the supporters are right. This is a major strategic victory, which practically achieves one of Russia's primary goals—that is, fully capture Donetsk. On the other hand, I can't support this on procedural grounds because of the ongoing item, which has been placed there for months with nothing spectacular happening. I proposed a removal of the ongoing item twice and warned that one day a major event would happen that would merit inclusion on its own. That day has cone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Great article, and while there is ongoing, it's not unprecedented that major events within the context of ongoing are posted to ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Already covered by ongoing. Moreover, the blurb is non-neutral. Grabbing some territory containing burned out buildings while losing 10,000s of troops and 100s of armored vehicles is not necessarily a "victory." Jehochman Talk 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be a pyrrhic victory, but getting the city absolutely qualifies as a victory. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I understand why this was nominated, but it's unlikely to be a decisive moment in the war. Before the invasion it had a population of 30,000 - a small town. This is a far less important capture than those of Kherson, Mairupol, Sievierodonetsk, and arguably even Bakhmut. Just because the war has largely been a stalemate in the last year doesn't mean we should blurb every advance - that's what the Ongoing entry is for. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. to quote the 'strategic importance' section of the article: "the Russian capture of Avdiivka would not have a strategic impact on the overall war". <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt - normally Id say covered by ongoing, but its a really good article and as a story its gotten enough attention to merit posting on its own.  nableezy  - 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing, good faith nom though. Hungry403 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is covered by ongoing. Moncoposig (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dmitry Markov (photographer)
Russian journalist and photographer who on the same day as Navalny. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support is acceptable. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Alain Cribier
Pioneering French cardiologist. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2024
 * Weak support Well-cited, but a bit short for my liking. The   Kip  03:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support bit short but not quite a stub. Sources fine. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a dead link, and 'Awards and memberships' needs refs. Stephen 23:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Idris Ali (politician)
Indian MP Member of Parliament for the 16th Lok Sabha from Basirhat, West Bengal. --65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I can't see anything particularly wrong with this article. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any REFs to support the date and place of birth listed in the infobox? This should be in the main prose, too. --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a reference & put it in the main prose. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Gotovitch

 * Anyone? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done a rudimentary referencing pass on the Background section. The article probably needs some work. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand this. It's cited to two academic articles and a range of press articles. The two points flagged - for which I am grateful - are both entirely uncontroversial and one of them was already sourced. I have fixed both. or another admin. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw that the source says in page 2 that he pursued a licentiate degree in history but don't see where it says he finished it in 1961. Now I see it; it's on page 3. I don't see where it says the name of the paper now either. Pinging @Stephen since it doesn't work if you edit the ping in. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, you removed the "in 1961" part as part of Special:Diff/1209218738. I wonder why was that? Anyways, I've restored it now. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is sourced properly. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bryan Thomas

 * Posted Stephen 00:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Imtiaz Qureshi
Indian chef. Article is a reasonable start-class biography Article has developed to at least a C-class biography. Rater.js says B-class, but, I think it is a solid C-class. Ktin (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears well sourced Dantus21 (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Referenced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted, Closed) Alexei Navalny dies

 * Support-- obvious support here. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. ♠ 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- clearly a notable and significant death, especially in the midst of Russia's current condition. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
 * Support on notability as per above --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support* One of the most important political death of recent times 51.154.145.205 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Reports of this death are already the leading item of news on many publications, in Russian and English. There are some tags in the article that still need addressing. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The report on his death is one-sided. Alexei's press secretary, Kira Yarmysh: "The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug is spreading the news of Alexey Navalny's death in IK-3. We have no confirmation of this yet. Alexey's lawyer is currently on his way to Kharp. As soon as we have some information, we will report on it." --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The other side is Russian government which evade answering, if we consider to wait for their respond then I'm afraid we have to wait a life-time. 3000MAX (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the Russian government is the one which gave their version already. We're waiting for Navalny's lawyer (Leonid Solovyev) to provide independent verification. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2, penal colony is more precise than prison, and describing it as Russian is redundant. Giraffer (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability as a major event in Russian politics, but agree that we should be waiting for confirmation. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support posting altblurb IV given the importance of the announcement either way, and the relative lack of independent verification. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2  once confirmation is in. Polyamorph (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the absence of confirmation, support alt 4 for immediate posting. Polyamorph (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 if/when confirmation from his team arrives Jaguarnik (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait. This is top news at the moment. However, wait until his death is confirmed. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 12:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * not sure what kind of death confirmation you're waiting for - Putin's press sec has already confirmed that this isn't a mistake - but okay  Kasperquickly (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's a lie, Putin's the one who would benefit from telling it. If Navalny's own side also says that he died, there's no reason both sides would be lying in the same way Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How would Putin benefit from it, lol? what do you think Navalny's secretly kept alive in a bunker somewhere? Or has escaped prison in the middle of Siberia and is currently on the run?
 * Nevermind the severe sanctions that are sure to follow together with the increased arming for the ukrainians, how on earth does putin benefit from faking his deaht? Kasperquickly (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think that no one has ever falsely announced the death of one of their enemies on purpose? They do so when they believe they have something to gain from announcing their death, but also that keeping them alive might prove useful at some point in the future.
 * His death was announced by Putin because he has something to gain from doing so. Why exactly that is isn't something we know, but there's definitely no reason why both him and Navalny's camp would lie and say that he was dead, which is why people here want confirmation from his side as well instead of just taking Russia's word on the matter Gimmethegepgun (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of death from Navalny's spokesperson is what we're waiting for. Polyamorph (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * how do u imagine that happening? shes living in the west hasnt been to russia in years? Think shes gonna go undercover into the russian gulag to check whats what? Even if so that would take weeks, months with preparations accounted for. Navalny's lawyer who is factualy in russia has in fact confirmed his death Kasperquickly (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for what? the fact that she resides in the west? literally open her wikipedia article and scroll to the bottom of her biography section Kasperquickly (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, for Navalny's lawyer confirming his death. Which is pretty much what we're all waiting for, actually. She said he was on his way to Kharp an hour ago. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, its a he, second of all, hes already stated that at the request of his family he's not gonna comment any more on his death Kasperquickly (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The spokesperson (she) said that the lawyer (he) was on his way to Kharp. Do you have any other source actually saying the lawyer confirmed the death? You say he stated it "at the request of the family", but where did he state that? Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * literally just google it before asking here
 * https://t.me/novaya_pishet/43722
 * Адвокат Алексея Навального Леонид Соловьев — «Новой газете»:
 * «По решению семьи Алексея Навального я вообще ничего не комментирую. Сейчас разбираемся. Адвокат у Алексея был в среду. Все тогда было нормально». Kasperquickly (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are things that are easy to search and users should be encouraged to check sources themselves. However, this is not one of them - with all search for Navalny's name in Latin script pointing to major news outlets quoting Russian officials - and you would do to provide the source a bit more politely with that in mind. 2A00:23C6:ED9E:D201:D5B8:7566:E08C:C576 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that Yulia Navalnaya, wife of Alexei Navalny, stated that she wants to wait for confirmation. From Meduza: "Мы не можем верить Путину, они всегда лгут." ("We cannot believe Putin, they always lie."(https://meduza.io/live/2024/02/16/umer-navalnyy-onlayn-meduzy) Jaguarnik (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked the website Jaguarnik indicated and did not find that Yulia Navalnaya, stated that she wants to wait for confirmation.
 * Yulia Abrosimova spoke in Munich at the KSZE this afternoon in no uncertain terms.https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-68319500 There is no reason to wait to post this news any longer. Wuerzele (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "We can't really believe Putin and his government," she told the Munich Security Conference in Germany. (from the BBC source you linked) Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See and search/find for "lawyer"  Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per others. Ecrusized (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support clearly. I think we have the RS we need (NYT, etc. citing Russian authorities). Davey2116 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support pending confirmation of his death from reputable sources, who have yet to do so as far as I can tell. Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for inclusion, reports for his death are the lead stories for pretty much every global news source this morning.PaulRKil (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, now, no 'pending confirmation' required.  ——Serial  13:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few paragraphs that I saw that lack an ending citation (including one with a quote), so while despite being heavily cited, that needs to be fixed before posting. --M asem (t) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I tagged CNs on these, a total of 8. I suspect most are refs that already exist in the article and/or nearby but just need a ref reuse to cover the information. --M asem (t) 13:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support blurb on notability, but it may be too soon to say he "dies". If we're to post now, which I think isn't unreasonable, I suggest something to the effect of " is reported dead by Russian authorities". Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Most of the news sources ends their report with "authorities say" or "penal service says". So far no independent first-hand reporting from non-government source. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 I agree it's reasonable to post now provided the blurb is clear that this is reported by Russian authorities. Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation from his lawyer, and for the 9 cn's on his article to be fixed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a page about it: Death of Alexei Navalny. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Separate page, at least at this time, is wholly unnecessary, particularly if it is just going to be reaction kudzu.<span id="Masem:1708091702314:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support any blurb as highly notable The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blub for political murder of leading dissident in Russia. There are ten tags present.  It would be a good idea for the nominators or others to patch up as many of these as they can, either by finding a source, or removing dubious or superfluous statements.  I will take a quick look to see what I could fix in my limited time available. Jehochman Talk 14:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait With this story, a few cn tags in career prose would not be a major impediment, but as that prose relates to clearly controversial politics and Navalny's arrest, the information should be verifiable before the article is linked on MP. As the article is tagged for presumed dead, I am not sure if it needs a tense update yet or not. Proposed blurbs may need accuracy checks. 2A00:23C6:ED9E:D201:D5B8:7566:E08C:C576 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Yulia Navalnaya, Alexey Navalny's wife is currently in a live press conference. She appears uncertain about the veracity of state media's claim of Navalny's death. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until other sources close to Navalny confirms his death (pertaining specifically to his wife and his lawyer). This may or may not be another Lil Tay situation, wherein one side said that the person is already dead, but the other side has not yet confirmed it (and eventually debunked the report). Vida0007 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course with Lil Tay it was a publicity stunt by her side. In this case it's his enemies confirming his death. JM (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some articles from Russian news about Anatoly Navalny, father of Alexei Navalny, seemingly confirming the death of his son. However, Kira Yarmysh says that these articles are false and none of Navalny's relatives have confirmed his death. (https://twitter.com/Kira_Yarmysh/status/1758500198442230089) Jaguarnik (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Information Alexei's press secretary, Kira Yarmysh: There have been reports that Alexei Navalny’s father confirmed his death. It is not true. Navalny's relatives did not give such comments. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support very significant. I prefer alt blurb 3. Setarip (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation as above. Then, support ALT2, oppose ALT3 as the separate death article is a needless WP:CFORK which I have AFDed, and so should not be linked, as it provides no additional encyclopedic value. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmation, then support ALT2. Also, I'd recommend linking "penal colony" to the specific place like ALT1 does --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support most significant Russian opposition leader, the end of a long period of persecution. JM (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support after it's been confirmed. Suonii180 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, death of a major political figure Hyder538 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, without any question. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready A quick glance turned up at least a half dozen CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 once the article is ready. Moncoposig (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event, and a death of a popular figure. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 16:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support Important political figure, but still under development — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Support. Some tea with your polonium, Mr Navalny? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * EXTREMLY STRONG SUPPORT, BUT WAIT Putin may be lying about the death of a political rival, so before we add it, we should at least get confirmation from his family. Redacted II (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Indisputably notable. KlayCax (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, reliable secondary sourcing is a requirement before we post someone's death on the main page. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And we have that? From Sky, The Guardian, The NYT... Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sky and Guardian sources in the proposal are based entirely on the official Russian claims, which are known for being untrustworthy. That's not independent sourcing Gimmethegepgun (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All of them are reporting what the Russian authorities say, which automatically makes it a question. We need independent sourcing on the actual claim, not something from Russia's govt<span id="Masem:1708107886501:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and NOW. Preferably in version IV, until the little doubt there may be as to the veracity of the report has been quelled. But (at least at the moment of writing this) his article reports his death as a fact, so any of the versions are OK.Nø (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That his article reports the death as fact is a problem with the article, not an argument to propagate the problem here. Sources aren't in agreement yet. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for posting, and support for stronger wording such as 'prisoner of conscience', 'political prisoner' or 'Putin's opponent'. Supported by sources such as Amnesty International.  Mel ma nn   17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Amnesty intentional is known here as a biased but factually true source due to being an advocacy group. Stringing together "opposition leader" and "dies in [prison]" is enough IMO. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb IV This is a major event whether or not he's dead. I'm aware consensus is against me so Support III if and when it's confirmed. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 18:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I support posting of IV right now. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb IV. The news is the announcement. While we should be more careful to say anything too definitive without independent verification for now, it is true that the authorities have reported his death. We can adjust as required later. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and NOW as major event.
 * Already announced by several medias around the globe, and Biden has talked about it...
 * To counter counter-arguments, even in the unlikely case it's not true, it would be an event...
 * SOURCES:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/16/world/aleksei-navalny
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/navalny-death-biden-trump-divide/index.html
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/disparitions/article/2024/02/16/alexei-navalny-de-l-engagement-au-sacrifice_6216957_3382.html
 * https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/02/16/reacties-navalny/
 * Etc. 2A02:2788:1028:8D5:611A:E2F:9A40:C357 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is an event isn't in doubt, the question is whether we should affirm the veracity of the claims only based on what the Russian government says (as their claim was the one that was reported throughout media, there hasn't been independent verification yet). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Slightly confused about what exactly confirmation might entail. Is there reason to think it's in the government's interests to lie about this? There are many questions about the circumstances, but we're not reporting the circumstances. Why on earth would Russia say he's dead and keep him alive? 2A01:4B00:E809:A00:A912:5EAC:E686:117C (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A relatively simple one would go as such: it's an election year, and announcing his death further intimidates the opposition, but later they could announce "yeah actually no he's still alive lol" in response to criticism Gimmethegepgun (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the mean blurb, it is indeed a remote gulag, not a regular inside-city perison. Also his death rise questions about Russian terror machine so it'snotible enough. 3000MAX (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also we need to add the point that his death is shady and not a normal natural death. I don't see this fact in any blurb, considering previous assassination attempt of him. 3000MAX (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's Russia, we do not need to state the obvious. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added article2 There's now a Death of Alexei Navalny article which really should be the main target. Added this to the proposed blurbs as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb. Now! No waiting ! Close discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb IV for its detail and per above. His death has been confirmed by U.S. Sec. of State Blinken. Hugely noteworthy. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Two quick points. The President of the United States and numerous high-ranking persons are explicitly blaming Putin for his death. If there was even a chance that he was still alive they would not be making these kinds of statements. Secondly, this is obviously blurb worthy on its merits. The only issue from my perspective is article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - updated, referenced. ITN soon. Blurb is a given.BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted as "Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny (pictured) reportedly dies in a penal colony near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47." I'm using "reportedly" because the article about the death does not describe it as an unqualified fact yet.  Sandstein   21:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's at least 5 CN tags, as been previously discussed. Needs to be pulled until fixed. --M asem (t) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Too many CNs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have never required that articles be fully absent of CN tags. Five in an article of this size, and not on any major points, is acceptable. It's down to two CN tags now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think the use of the word "reportedly" was a smart decision on your part. It emphasizes the lack of credible sources confirming his death, all the while still presenting its announcement and promulgation as a major news event, which it is. Kurtis (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was prepping to post it myself and was going to use a qualifier like that to note it is not 100% certain. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull There are five cn's, meaning this is not quite ready yet. Article of good quality, as all of the cn's have been fixed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adjust the blurb to make the death article the bold link. It's the death which is the event and that article doesn't have any tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The death article is 75% or more of just reactions, which is not a good way to write event articles. Also, 5 cn tags should be easily dealt with. M asem (t) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I read both articles and the death article seemed more readable and to the point. The full bio is too big at about 350K and so the death is hard to find there.  And the reactions are what makes the death significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: For an article of this length, 5 cns is alright. It is also pretty easy to add that, especially in this case where they were all removed due to incorrect link rot that was still archived. Now, there's only 1 cn left. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the information connected to the final cn tag, as it basically stated that Navalny lived inside his house while under house arrest. With that, the article is now free of obvious citing issues. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good job, that's actually pretty funny that someone put a CN tag for Navalny being in his house while under house arrest JM (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of Navalny's death from his team: Navalny's spokesperson has confirmed on Twitter that Navalny died yesterday. Giraffer (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By this we could return using between ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, or ALT3. Suggest ALT2 as it is more clearly worded and linked. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that it's confirmed we can label it as confirmed. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that "reportedly" has been removed since 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just agreeing with the decision, and pointing out that it was the proper thing to do to wait for confirmation before removing "reportedly". Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment How does this "confirmation" change anything? Yesterday, people said the government's announcement wasn't enough to confirm his death, that independent confirmation was needed, and today it's "confirmed" because the government told Navalny's mother? How does this make sense, when in both cases the government is the source? They still haven't seen his body. And for the record, I don't think there was any reason to doubt it when the government announced it yesterday, but this makes no sense. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the government told Navalny's mother (why'd you think that?). It's that the spokeswoman also believes that he's dead. This plus her previous statement that she'll wait for ocnfirmation from a lawyer's visit means confirmation, and we probably don't need any more confirmation for now. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The BBC says Navalny's mother visited the prison today and the prison service (government) gave her a notice saying he died on Friday. This is the same entity which issued a press release on Friday to announce his death. Navalny's team didn't see his body, they were told it was taken to Salekhard and they won't be able to see him until the post-mortem examination is complete. So yes, Navalny's team is simply relying on the notice from the government-run prison. Exact same source as yesterday. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We did not take Navalny's mother into account. Whatever the reason is, Navalny's team now considers Navalny dead while they didn't yesterday. That is the reason and only reason we count it confirmed. There is no way to speculate the cause here. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to his team, his wife also considers him dead. Wikipedia follows, not leads, so if everyone's reporting him dead, Wikipedia reports him dead. JM (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make sense. The initial argument was that we needed independent confirmation of his death. His team/family now choosing to believe the government's announcement doesn't change the underlying fact that the Russian government is the source. I'm merely pointing this out because I think the government's announcement on Friday was sufficient confirmation, not because I think he's not dead. Either way, case closed. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that his associates and loved ones believe he is dead is enough reason to not hold off on outright stating it as a confirmed fact any longer. At this point, I think it's fair to say that Alexei Navalny is almost certainly deceased. If it transpires that he is somehow still alive, then we can make the necessary changes at that point in time. Kurtis (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the " dies" wikilink should be bolded as it is the main article as well. I mentioned this at WP:ERRORS and of was redirected back here but both articles were in the nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was controversial whether it should be included, see above. That article was added to the nomination later. I am also against bolding because... I'm not sure, it'd look weird? Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't controversial at all and the AfD debate gave a very clear consensus. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about whether the article should exist; I'm saying that whether the link should be included was slightly controversial. Masem and Joseph2302 opposed it being linked, and Andrew and the admin who posted supported it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The AfD only decided that the article should be kept, not that it should be a bolded link (which is a ITN-specific process). For the record, I also oppose bolding as the two links would be visually indistinguishable (cf. MOS:SEAOFBLUE) Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically, it would be distinguishable as (pictured) interrupts it, but it's still pretty confusing and weird-looking. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the (pictured) will likely roll off with the next blurb and then they'll merge. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but the story is that he has died; that IS the main news Abcmaxx (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter as long as we can't figure out a wording that separates the links and isn't any more awkward. Plus, bolding isn't that needed anyways. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well User:Andrew Davidson raised this point and the previous objection were on quality that has long been fixed. The word "(pictured)" seperates it Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See Chaotic Enby's comment you've replied to. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This really is a non-issue. Not all blurbs have pictures and there's not much wrong in bolding two words in a row, it isn’t a "sea of blue" at all. Much more important we highlight the article that actually covers the story in question. No-one is really going to think his surname or that the article title was Alexei Navalny dies. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that someone's going to mistake his surname. It's that people could reasonably think that "Alex Navalny dies" as a whole, including the name, links to the article about hsi death, and get surprised after the click that it leads them to the person, especially since links aren't underlined by default. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:SOB is that two bolded or unbolded links next to each other should be avoided when possible. JM (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What Aaron said, people might interpret "Alexei Navalny dies" as a single link going to his death and be confused. It doesn't really cost much to avoid it, and rewording the blurb could probably be doable (or even, unbolding Navalny and just bolding the link to the death article). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles nor our blurb seems to even mention a key connection:- Navalny's death was announced on the first day of the Munich Security Conference -- the western world's largest annual defence meeting.  This was attended and addressed by his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, and the timing of the death made quite an impact.  See:
 * ''Yulia Navalnaya takes stage at Munich...
 * Navalny death rocks Munich Security Conference
 * Navalny death stuns Munich
 * We still have work to do...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fulton Kuykendall
65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roeland Nolte
65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready. Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 07:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Legalisation of same-sex marriage and adoptions in Greece
This is a historic and significant development for LGBT rights in Greece, especially when they're the first Eastern Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - is there any likelihood that this will not become law? I'm not sure whether there's another step after this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The next step for the bill is to receive assent from the president and for it to be published on the gazette. The bill was proposed by the ND government and was supported by both Syriza and PASOK, the 2 other major parties. I'm not the most familiar with Greek politics but I'd say it's fairly likely it'll become law. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose because while perhaps the first Eastern Orthodox country to legalize this, it is far from the first European country and in fact more catching up to the normal the rest of the world has. --M asem (t) 05:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Same-sex marriage is recognised in just 37 countries, that is hardly 'catching up to the normal the rest of the world has'.
 * Traumnovelle (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support from a quick overview of the article it seems good enough. I don't think we should oppose a blurb just because it's not the first on the continent. JM (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per JM. The EO church and its adherents have traditionally broken more socially conservative, and while not quite as much a "woah" moment as it would be if, say, Ukraine or Serbia legalized it, it's still a notable milestone. It's the first nation in the Balkans to have done so as well. The   Kip  07:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Slovenia is actually the first Balkan country to legalize same-sex marriage, which they did in 2022. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 19:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is impressive and detailed, though it could use a bit more historical context. Level of significance is good. Quick question: does this go in effect immediately? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. While Orthodox, Greece is in the European Union where LGBT agenda is known to be prominent. Likely better fits DYK . Brandmeistertalk  08:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While the expansion on the article the past week has been significant, it isn't actually anywhere near the DYK line. Or do you think the article should go for GA? It does look pretty good. Wouldn't say that "did you know [country] legalized gay marriage in 2024" is a particularly compelling DYK blurb, though. Any particular reason you think this article would work well on DYK? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Struck that, I'm agnostic about DYK now. Brandmeistertalk  20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are >30 countries in the world that have legalized same-sex marriage, so this is not remarkable. You could argue that Greece is the first Eastern Orthodox country to recognize same-sex marriage, but countries are not defined by their religion. Banedon (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I don't think opposing this on the grounds of Greece not being the first country, or even the first European country, to legalise same-sex marriage, is the right course of action. This is still a significant development in terms of LGBT rights. And even if being a first in *something* had to be a factor (which i.m.o. it doesn't, but it could of course be argued), being the first Balkan or Eastern Orthodox country to do so should be more than enough to fit the criteria. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For all 200+ counties, if/when they legalize gay marriage, there is nearly always a way to break down some classification of "being first in X" do to this.<span id="Masem:1708089991466:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Slovenia was the first Balkan country to legalise same sex marriage. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both France, Germany, Iceland, the Pitcairn Islands and UK laws didn't make it into ITN and it's rare for a law being passed to make it into ITN, fail to see why same-sex marriage should be any different Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until it becomes law, then post the legalisation. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose just as we've opposed it for so many other countries that previously legalised same sex marriages. Being an Eastern Orthodox country isn't a sufficient reason for this to be treated differently to previous countries' nominations for the equivalent legislation. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support As per above, there have been numerous countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, and the number is still growing. Decisions like this we have posted, such as in Taiwan, have usually been due to the country being the first to do so in a geographical region. While that doesn't apply here, this is also the first Eastern Orthodox country to do so. I believe that, because marriage in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is said to be specifically between a man and a woman, and some Eastern Orthodox leaders explicitly denounce same-sex marriage, this is notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per 2G0o2De0l. Milestone legalization. Moncoposig (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, a country legalizing same-sex marriage is ITN-worthy in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support First Orthodox Christian-majority country to legalize same-sex marriage. KlayCax (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely per Masem. Greece is nominally Orthodox with most people self-identifying as such, but regular church attendance is fairly low and according to Pew Research statistics only around half of all Greeks consider religion an important part of their lives. In short, it is starting to look more like Italy, a country that is nominally Catholic but in practice quite secular. And as noted above, Greece is a member of the EU. So this was coming as inevitably as the sun rising in the east. I think the big story here is that Greece is losing its religiosity. Churches are still crowded during Holy Week, but for much of the rest of the year, it's mostly the older generation, and mainly women. For many Greeks church attendance comes down to baptisms, weddings, funerals, Great Friday and Easter (Pascha). Some will add to that Christmas and their name day. While detailed numbers on church attendance are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that most of those <30 do so only when obliged for social reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose When the ITN brought up the legalization of same-sex marriage in Cuba (which IMO was far more significant as it was the first authoritarian country and Caribbean country do so, and it was paired with more extensive pro-LGBT legislation such as including more rigorous gender rights protections), it was struck down on the grounds that merely being the first in a region wasn't sufficient grounds for same-sex marriage legalization news to be posted, and that only if it was an extraordinary circumstance (like if a super-conservative country like Russia or KSA legalized it) will it be allowed. Also the claim that Greece is the first Balkan country to do so is wrong, as Slovenia has allowed it since 2022. This means that it's only "historic" because it's the first the Eastern Orthodox country to do so, which is an extremely weak justification for posting given that relatively few countries follow it.  Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 19:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The nomination for Cuba recognizing same-sex marriages was not "struck down". Rather, there were about equal votes on either side, and consensus was not reached in either direction. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't posted, so I consider it struck down Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be struck down would be a consensus against posting. In that case, there was no consensus and people argued until the news wasn't news anymore. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Greece is hardly the conservative orthodox country it used to be. Not particularly surprising or transformative. Countries like Russia, Iran, etc would be blurbable. Thriley (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn't post for example countries that were the first to abolish capital punishment, or legalise/decriminalise cannabis, so we should be consistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the legalization of Marijuana in Canada was posted --24.125.98.89 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was 5 years ago though, I nominated several countries abolishing capital punishment and all those got quite unanimously voted against posting. Abcmaxx (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Country changes law", no different from any other everyday legislative change.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the first ORTHODOX nation to legalize gay marriage? Holy shit, those guys are like REALLY conservative (ISNT RUSSIA ORTHODOX???). A huge win for all the 2SLGBTQI+ people and their allies in this world, and a clear show of disgust towards the russians where they massacre gay people hence my support vote Kasperquickly (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See above, Greece is pretty secular. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - if Wikipedia does post this then it needs to set some standard as to when such a move gets posted. I also have an issue with the idea that "marriage" related topics get posted because marriage is a cultural concept and not something that's truly a human right. You can have all the rights without even having a marriage in many western countries for example. DragonSign (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think that some LGBTQ items should be posted (especially revoking laws that forbid homosexual sex), but gay marriage is just one of numerous gay rights that include things such as gay adoption, and anti-discrimination laws are arguably much more important for example. If Wikipedia were to post all the progresses then I would support, but gay marriage is not globally notable in my opinion. Furthermore numerous countries around the world will soon legalise gay marriage or provide something similar, and I doubt that Wikipedia will post all of them, and I doubt that Wikipedia has posted all the gay marriages that have already happened. To back up the point I am trying to make, it's not essential for people to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual. It's a cultural issue that can sometimes be indicative of homophobia in a country, but as we have seen with Taiwan, the opposite can also be true. In many cases it's simply indicative of nothing more than political theatre. DragonSign (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - It is the first Orthodox Christian country to do so, and is also only one of 37 (out of 197) nations which have done so - less than a fifth of countries have legalised same sex marriage, which is far from a majority and is unfortunately almost half the amount of countries which criminalise same sex activity (65). For both of these reasons I believe this is still significant news and should be included in ITN, especially when we include far less significant events like big sports games. greyzxq  talk 00:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Big sports games are very significant for a vast proportion of the world's population, much more so than for the percentage of the total 10 million Greeks who will consider marriage rights significant. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Marriage is significant for a person's life, a sports tournament is significant for a person's mood for the day. JM (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Post (businessman)
He is credited with inventing Pop-Tarts. Death announced 14 February. Thriley (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is a stub, I think you'll need to expand it for it to be passed.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Abcmaxx (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * actually it says nothing about his invention or how it came about. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Article has now been expanded. Looks ready to post Post. Thriley (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I’ve made a request for William Post (inventor) to be moved to William Post (businessman). I think it is a more accurate description of his role. Any help with that would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Article was moved. Thriley (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angela Chao
Death announced 14 February. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article consists of 11 sentences and needs work. Moncoposig (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Chao’s article has been expanded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This new but still somewhat stubby wikibio currently has only 272 words of prose. Further expansion is in order, maybe? --PFHLai (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now 324 words of prose. Comfortably in Start class. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I see the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ventura Pérez Mariño
Spanish judge and politician. Admittedly a lot comes from an obituary, but most of his work was pre-2000 and this isn't a GA or FA nomination. Sources entirely in Spanish due to domestic field of work. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready. Moncoposig (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Super Bowl parade shooting
A truly shocking event, even as far as shootings in the U.S. go, happening during a parade associated with one of the largest nationally-televised sporting events in the country. Unusual in that it involved multiple shooters and children were injured. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I know the people who still think we have a minimum death threshold will think this doesn't measure up to other shootings, but this being at the Super Bowl victory parade generated a lot more attention (and news coverage) than a typical mass shooting gets. The article quality is good, this is what ITN is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is business as usual in the US, not a significant number of caualities, and just because it was tied to an event like a Super Bown victory parade doesn't give it any extra weight. Vague hand waving from leaders on tighter gun control but this certainly isn't going to turn that tide. It's an equivalent argument of why we should be posting any given protest in the world without a clear larger impact. M asem (t) 16:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The "business as usual" argument would mean we shouldn't have posted the Super Bowl at all since it's "business as usual" that someone won and a new offseason begins. Many of the items ITN posts are "business as usual" in that respect. The weight comes from the news coverage, and the significance of the event is not tied to the gun control legislation that will or will not come from this. We post tons of items without "clear larger impact". Compare and contrast this article with another one-death mass shooting article that is on track to be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but recurring items are generally once per year if new less frequent, whereas gun shootings, and other similar mass casualty events, worldwide, are too frequent to post every single one.<span id="Masem:1708017316807:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Masem is right. Another day, another shooting in the United States. Sad routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, and honestly, this is a perfect example of media bias and it's influence on coverage. Where and when the shooting happened does not actually change the reality that this was a small fatality incident. It just makes it a more flashy topic to cover. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe if this had some notable cause I would reconsider, but I don't see much reason to post this when considering that the police say that the shooting had "no nexus to terrorism", and rather started after a dispute among three people. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Unfortunately, it is an all too-common event, that just managed to find itself in a vastly more public event. While the article is good, the feasible decision is to leave it at that. Mjeims (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. It's a tragic routine, and this certainly won't spark any change. Moncoposig (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Folake Onayemi
Nigerian Professor. Article looks to be almost ready. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. Moncoposig (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for the nomination I think she is a good RD candidate (in part why I was working on her biography) Lajmmoore (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - The sourcing in the "Selected works" section isn't correspondent to the listed works themselves. That should probably be fixed before posting. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 09:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - issue was fixed. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 10:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - I've now fixed this issue, all listed selected works are referenced Eritha (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the article looks ready Srsval (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support article quality is pretty good Setarip (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Gullett
– Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good to go. Moncoposig (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article is of sufficiently good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Prabowo wins the Indonesian presidential election
Based on the quick count, Prabowo has near 60% of Indonesians voting for him. I get this is very early, but from the track record and from my experience as an Indonesian myself quick count is generally accurate with margin of error around 5%, and since he has over 50% of votes (especially 55%+), he will win without going to the second round. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait just to be safe, which would also give the newer blurbs some airtime. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Even with the accuracy of the quick count, it would be best to wait until he is elected. Moncoposig (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until he is elected. Setarip (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a NPOV tag and an unsoured national honours section. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per WP:CRYSTAL, even if the result is very likely, we don't post projections at ITN. Once he mathematically has the majority of the total votes cast, then we can post it (once the tags are fixed of course). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comments: The Prabowo Subianto wikipage has orange tags that need to be addressed while we wait for official results from voting. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment the nomination has the election article as the nominated one, but the bio article as the bolded one. Which one is actually intended to be featured? JM (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the  2024 Indonesian presidential election  is the one Setarip (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then that one should be bolded instead of the bio. In any case, @MarioJump83 should answer. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for ducking this question, I meant Prabowo Subianto should be the one that was bolded since I followed the Ilham Aliyev's reelection ITN nomination, but 2024 Indonesian presidential election being bolded, as I realized is more proper. And also, I think this ITN should be withdrawn as we should wait for official results that will be finalized in March 20th after some reconsideration, this nomination is going nowhere anyway. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johanna von Koczian
Multi-talented German actress on stage in plays and musicals, in film, on television, also a popular singer (landed a hit), television presenter, book author ... - article is growing. So far the references were miserable, it's getting better. Check out and improve if you can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas
Tofusaurus (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for multiple reasons. One, actual conviction in the senate is considered impossible with the Democratic majority. Two, this is nowhere close to, say, the outing of McConnell as House Speaker in terms of impact of how the gov't will function. Three, this absolutely is just political theater that we avoid featuring as news items. Just because its the first Cabinet member impeachment in more than a century is not reason for us to post this. --M asem (t) 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support we've posted a similarly pointless/inconsequential impeachment of DJT, it'd only be fair if we've posted this as well. Kasperquickly (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * DJT was impeached for actual crimes, where this is just nakedly political.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose impeachment of non world leader are not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A "minister" gets sacked. That's too run-of-the-mill compared to other countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, not sacked. He's still in the job, it's just that half the legislature is trying to get rid of him. JM (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose An impeachment is a charge, not a conviction. Per WP:PERP, we should stick to the presumption of innocence. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Impeachment of a cabinet member with no foreseeable consequences. Yay, more political theater. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 12:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Andrew - no conviction has been made. Moncoposig (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BLPCRIME.  NW1223 &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * • Oppose No conviction was made. Setarip (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Bouley

 * Oppose as the article has widespread sourcing issues, as well as two orange tags and a maintenance tag. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose tons of issues Setarip (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 Indian farmers' protest
Davidindia (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the moment, they do not seem to have any special significance beyond simple protests. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment if we do run this, can we replace lakh with hundreds of thousands, as most non-Indian readers won't know what a lakh is. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. thanks Davidindia (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb which also provides some additional context about the protests. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is confusing me. For example, after reading it, I don't know if the protests are ongoing, or have ended, as the article uses past tense in multiple places (such as saying the protest "saw hundreds of thousands of farmers make efforts to converge in New Delhi"), but uses present tense in other places (such as saying some farmer organisations "are leading the 'Delhi Chalo' march"). As for notability, the article does not make it clear, what, if any, impacts have come out of the protests. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Will try to clean it up. Davidindia (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note that after reading the updated article, the article seems to contradict itself as to whether the protests are ongoing, or have ended. The lead sentence says the protests are ongoing, but the infobox box says the date was 13 February, not 13 February-present. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No sources say that it has ended, so it's probably present. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support provided we include the farmers' protests in France and Germany too. There are farmers' protests across the EU but France and Germany have specific articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And in Spain, Portugal, Italy... but they are certainly not as intense and noticeable as they were a week ago. It is no longer the time. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The EU protests are still in the news. See Farmers’ Revolt Threatens Election Year Upsets Around the World which reports this as a global phenomenon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * just because it's in the news doesn't mean it's itn-worthy at this point. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article for the German protests wouldn't work for ITN right now, as it hasn't been updated since 8 February. The article for the French protests, while being updated daily, does not contain any information about them since 3 February, meaning it would also not be suitable for ITN in its current form. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We included that last India farmer protest from a few years back, but that was farm more significant in scale. Protests like these are far too common around the globe to post every single one, and we need to use discretion. M asem (t) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly _-_Alsor (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article is in horrendous shape. Unsure on notability yet. The   Kip  19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability as well; I'm not seeing what makes these protests especially notable, and tens of thousands (or even just thousands, as per the article) seems fairly trivial in a nation of 1.4 billion. The   Kip  04:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality A protest with hundreds of thousands of people is certainly notable. However, the article is currently badly written, and must be improved if we plan on posting it to ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That depends on if we evaluate based on percentage or nominals. India has 1.4+ billion people. Is there precedent on which we should use? Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no concept of precedent with ITN. Per WP:ITNSIGNIF: —Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Massive protests+ unusual for india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperquickly (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - I tried to polish the article's tone a bit, but some additional sourcing and detailed information may also need to be added before posting. Right now, the article is a bit short. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless I'm missing something, the "hundreds of thousands" claim does not appear to be sourced. The BBC and Al Jazeera sources say "thousands", whilst the AP says "tens of thousands". In a country of 1.4bn people, I'm unconvinced that this particular protest is hugely notable at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It has a source provided in the opening comment, though someone should add that to the article. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That source is talking about the size of the 2021 protests. It says "The earlier farmer protests saw huge mobilisation of lakhs of farmers ... This time the mobilisation is lower as 25,000 farmers and 5,000 tractors are likely to be part of the march." That's quite a lot, but it's definitely still not "hundreds of thousands". Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggestion for blurb - please replace 2024 Indian farmers protest with 2024 Indian farmers' protest. Tube·of·Light 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until we can get a more accurate approximation of how many people are involved in the protests, and until the article is improved.
 * Moncoposig (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Currently lakhs any source for the "hundreds of thousands" claim. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha! <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Addressed the "citation needed" tags. Capitals00 (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That source says "hundreds", not "hundreds of thousands". Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea how I forgot to reword. Anyway, have used another source this time to state "tens of thousands". Capitals00 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Whoever put the [citation needed] tag in the blurb itself, that is hilarious and I love it. Oppose because the article is too short. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Chaudhry Muhammad Adnan
Ainty Painty (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Virtually a stub. The   Kip  07:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub, it's 6 sentences  q w 3 r t y  13:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still stubby with only 144 words of prose four days after nomination. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Azerbaijani presidential election
--ShadZ01 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support? honestly not sure about this one. Article looks good to go, but "dictator wins rigged election" is not exactly a news story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is one of the "widely seen by international observers as neither free nor fair" cases, and it's a re-election. I don't think we posted his last re-election, which was of more significance, as terms were just extended from five to seven years by Aliyev himself. Moncoposig (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This election seems to me to be a continuation of the previous terms of Aliyev, and not really producing any notable shifts in policy warranting a blurb. Also, the article has a NPOV tag. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as it says above, "dictator wins rigged election" is not ITN-level news. JM (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kiril Simeonovski is this really ITN/R? It's neither a general election nor a change in the administrator of the executive, as far as I can tell. JM (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's a re-election of a person who exercises large executive powers (note that Azerbaijan has a semi-presidential system similar to those in Russia, Ukraine, Romania and France).


 * Comment This is an ITN/R item and will remain so as long as we don't exclude sham elections, which is very difficult to do given that there are no measurable indicators on the democraticity of an election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But a re-election isn't a "change in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government". JM (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is ITNR. WP:ITNELECTIONS specifically says that the change in a head of state is ITNR, and this is not a change in the head of state, and I don't think this is a general election (that would probably be the parliamentary elections in Azerbijan). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This technically qualifies as a general election in the same way it is in the countries in brackets in one of my previous comments. If the prime minister were a more powerful office, he’d probably opted to exercise an authoritarian rule from that one. I see that we’ve posted Putin’s and Macron’s re-elections as ITN/R items, so this is most definitely in the same league.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment There is debate about whether this is ITNR. This is not a change in the head of state or government, so it would have to be the result of a general election to qualify. Am I right in saying that the general elections in Azerbijan are the parliamentary elections? If so, we should remove from ITNR. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tecnically it is also ITNR the results of general elections [...]. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My reading is that given that Azerbaijan is notionally a semipresidential system both the presidency and parliament would count as "general elections" though I'm not 1000% up to speed on the precedents here This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't general elections have to tackle the parliament? This election is only for the presidential spot. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. General election says In most systems, a general election is a regularly scheduled election, typically including members of a legislature, and sometimes other officers such as a directly elected president., which means that a presidential election can sometimes be considered a general election. To sum it up, a general election is a presidential election in a parliamentary system, both a presidential and a parliamentary election in a semi-presidential system, and a parliamentary election in a parliamentary republic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like too much of a stretch, as it would make any presidential election in a semi-presidential country a general election. Everything after your quoted sentence would count as original research. I also don't see where Putin's most recent reelection was posted. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The quoted sentence, which clearly states that a presidential election can sometimes be a general election, isn’t original research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It states that general elections can sometimes include presidential elections. I don't see where it says purely presidential elections can be a general election. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A presidential election is different from a parliamentary election everywhere, so it’s completely irrelevant if they take place at the same time or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many places have the executive determined by whichever party wins the most seats in the legislature, so no, an executive election is not necessarily different from a parliamentary election. Either way, I think we can apply IAR based on the principle of the rule probably being aimed at legislative elections, as 1. that's what most people seem to think of "general elections" 2. we have a separate rule for heads of state for a reason. I see no reason to make a special exception for semi-presidential states. If this thing is notable enough (which I doubt), it would not need an ITNR boost to its consensus. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the general election in Azerbaijan then? If it’s the parliamentary election, why is the prime minister unknown and the president wields ultimate power in the country? Why Macron’s re-election at the 2022 French presidential election was considered an ITN/R item, but this isn’t, when France also has a semi-presidential system?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be the parliamentary. I don't see the relevance of how the prime minister comes to office. Macron also shouldn't have been ITNR. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Added altblurb3 dictator attempts to legitimise continuing to call himself president. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose altblurb3: Don't see how this is an improvement, and this blurb has a consecutive link that looks the same (see MOS:SOB) Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb2 once the two unreferenced paragraphs get citations. Otherwise, the article looks very good for a sham election in a country other than Russia and Iran. I think the second alternative blurb is most precise.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 or a variation, seems important to note that it is a re-election rather than a change in government (without the sea of blue in altblurb3). CMD (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stale, the election was on the 7th, which is older than the oldest blurb. Stephen 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the results were only announced by secondary sources the second day, but that may still be too close. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability, regardless of if this is ITNR: Not a change in the head of state and was expected. Even if this is ITNR based on a wording technicality, it should be considered the same as normal presidential elections per my comment above. Note that at least 2 supports and 2Good's strike are based on the prospect of ITNR, which I've now boldly removed from the opening comment. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose scam election. would you have posted Stalin in 1940? Or Hitler? yikes... Kasperquickly (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Per above. A dictator winning a rigged election and continuing to stay in office isn't newsworthy, and altblurb3 makes the entire debacle sound even less relevant. Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 3 if orange-tag is resolved – Two well-detailed articles on a dictator and his election, a government that influences politics and power in the region strongly. A subject many of our readers might be unfamiliar with. I think this is a very appropriate feature for us; a fine reason to show off our writing on this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What in the world, Aliyev's article isn't updated at all, the election isn't even mentioned in it. It definitely shouldn't be bold-linked if this is featured, and I don't think we should feature the election article at all if the article on the man isn't updated... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Jansen
Dutch pianist. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nominating - I was out, and not done with the one below let alone this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine with me now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck Mawhinney
Vietnam War-era US Marine who holds the Corps' record for the most confirmed sniper kills. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are currently at least 6 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Only four {cn} tags remaining, including one for the date and place of birth. --PFHLai (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no more cn tags remaining. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now This is almost good enough, but a few more references are needed. Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Wright

 * Comment, please note that the death date was February 12, and per our policy «Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated)» it must be placed there. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the February 12 section now. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I nominated this, in the correct place, yesterday. What has happened to it? Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mjroots' nomination was removed as a duplicate. The nomination belongs in the 13th as that's the date that the news broke and we usually go by that rather than the precise date of death.  There's often a delay before the family makes a public announcement and this often lacks details.  See talk page discussion.
 * The news was all over the UK broadcast and online media on the 13th and it's on the front pages of the newspapers today, the 14th, as Wright was something of a national treasure.
 * This made his article the top read on Wikipedia on the 13th. Knowing that there would be a lot of interest, I made sure that we had a good picture in place.  I chose one of his prime and cropped it because it's fair use.  It's not a common picture so it's interesting that The Times chose to crop the same picture in the same way for their front page – I wonder if they followed my lead or just used the same logic.
 * As for ITN, RD won't work well because Steve Wright is a common name and so some context is needed as disambiguation. But that's a perennial issue.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Looks like I was beaten to the nom by about 6 minutes. Explanation accepted and understood. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, full of factoids. Serious nominatin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of work needed on referencing. I see whole sections such as his resignation from the Breakfast Show that are unsourced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been dealt with. If you can see anything else unsourced, perhaps you could add a tag (or find a source, of course)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was one example :) I will add some tags, don't have time to look for sources right now unfortunately. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Only three left now. If no sources are forthcoming, unsourced details could be removed or temporarily commented out? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No tags remaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still no {citation needed} tags remaining. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this good for posting? BangJan1999 13:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still no {citation needed} tags remaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is clearly ready to post to RD. Jusdafax (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bob Edwards
Peabody Award-winning radio host of National Public Radio's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Death announced today. Thriley (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose i mean, who is he?3000MAX (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RD !votes should be made on quality considerations, not significance considerations, as significance ("who?") is not a factor in whether or not RDs get posted. Significance !votes are not counted. JM (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Significance is never a factor in RD noms. What matters is the article quality. Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 13:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are two CN tags. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support no more cn tags. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced and no more concerns.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are multiple short paragraphs with zero footnotes. Now {cn} tagged. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ladislav Burlas
Notable musicologist and composer in Slovakia, had no article yet. There's a long list of works so far commented out because I had no time to check, but it's probably also sourced to the detailed entry of Slovak Music Centre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have the same works as in German now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article mostly looks good, but Burlas’ pages at Music Centre Slovakia have slightly different URLs for each page. I was able to find the proper URL to cite the “Awards” section, but I’m not sure which URLs are supposed to be used in various parts of the “Publications” section. Once those references are clarified, this article will be ready to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Blaylockjam10, I was out all day until now. Do you mean that the clear navigation on that page - works, bibliography, discography, awards - isn't enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be enough, but it might not be enough. Having the references be clearer would definitely be helpful.


 * Edit: If Ollieisanerd thinks it’s good enough, it’s probably good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, in a way I hope so, between I'm afraid that if I write 5 refs in Slovak and 5 in English, for the same site, some might shake heads, no? - What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve added clarifying references. I think I got confused by the mixture of English & non-English (mostly Slovak) titles & the bibliography including works that seem to be written by other authors, but it seems good enough now, so I think it’s ready. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. It seems like this is ready to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * since editing in pings doesn't work. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mihai Amihalachioaie
Moldovan conductor. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the Career section has zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I completely left that out. Did so. Cheers Erksahin (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Isabel Mijares
Death announced 11 February. Thriley (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment only three sources and page created posthumously. I'm on mobile and don't speak Spanish so can't check notability. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Her obituary is in El País. She is definitely notable. Please note that RD is not the place to question notability, only the quality of the article is to be assessed. Thriley (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Striking my comment. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 224 words of prose, so an expansion would be in order. Her list of publications also needs better sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Moore (American food executive)
Article was recently created. Needs expansion. Thriley (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Article is short but doesn't seem to have any major issues. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LVIII
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Somewhat surprised by the significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that this is still being worked on, though I figured I'd throw up the ITN thread because this is ITNR. I'm working on the game summary at present. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready a lot of uncited material (to be expected, it just ended) and a lot of unfilled boxes (to be expected).  TomMasterReal  TALK 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose Ah yes, the hand-egg finals. Not ready. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once ready. One of the most exciting games I've seen! BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We still haven't got this up yet? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some orange tags in the article still. Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once ready. GG's to the Chiefs. — VAUGHAN J.  ( TALK ) 05:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once ready per above, but it’s not quite there yet. The   Kip  06:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a prose summary for the game, which was missing at the time of the nomination. Is there anything else specific that's missing/needs to be fixed? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A few sections are missing citations, especially the International broadcasting (which is a huge mess). There's also no post-game section.  Sounder Bruce  06:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mahomes' MVP should be in prose and cited. —Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There are swathes of unreferenced text, and the list of broadcasters looks very weird (the repetitive hook "the game was televised by" is really not necessary).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged sections, also the TV broadcasting section violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as we don't need every country in the world listed. It isn't important to this encyclopedia article who broadcast it in Bulgaria or any country where very few people likely watched it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb to mention Patrick Mahomes as per WP:ITNSPORTS. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like Kiptum's blurb should still be the top one; it has more importance Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We usually mention the MVP, and the alt blurb follows the formatting of last years blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, the most recent post goes on top of the group of events that occurred on that same date. —Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Once ready, support alt blurb with the MVP blue link. microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 14:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominated picture of the MVP looks odd with him not having a helmet. I looked at the description for details and am not understanding why its source is given as Dwayne Johnson!?  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Vandalism. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support came down to the final seconds for the Chiefs to win. Not often that happens in American (or Canadian) football. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302 on quality Support and thanks for the ping ; whether the chiefs had something happen in the final seconds is also irrelevant.  ——Serial  15:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but... this is being held up by that whacking great unsourced "International" section. Given that the international audience in most of those countries, especially in the ones where the game took place in the early hours of a Monday morning, is unlikely to be great, why do we need it? Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For comparison, is limited to domestic coverage, while there is a standalone list 2022 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. —Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If anything the Super Bowl might have fewer viewers overseas than the NBA Finals. Basketball is a world sport Olympic sport, NFL not so much. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one cn left, but there's an "international" section that is holding the nomination up; what are we going to do about it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.nfl.com/super-bowl/ways-to-watch/countries-and-languages – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone removed the tags. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is debateable, but the entries need to be cited if the detail is staying. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just delete it. It's far too big for something so trivial, anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems Muboshgu's link verifies just about all of it. This looks good to go in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mahomes' MVP is in the blurb, but still not in the prose and cited. —Bagumba (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post it without MVP for the time being, to give the Afcon image a little more time?- it's only been there are couple of hours. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added to prose with citation. Natg 19 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (moved from not ready) Much improved. I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Because there is still an issue with the source of the pictured image, here are two possible alternatives: 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @2G0o2De0l There is no issue for the source. Some IP just vandalized the description before the image was posted on hewiki so we can't edit it. It's been fixed now. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Event of only local significance.--2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:D496:DB57:DCF5:7B65 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ITNSPORTS. In the American football section, you can see that the Super Bowl is listed. That page is part of the ITNR, meaning recurring ITN items. There is no debate about their notability, only quality. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, so it doesn't matter how "significant" you feel this is. Also, "only local significance" has NEVER been a valid criteria. It literally says above: "Please do not Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive." -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is still a CN tag and unreferenced sentences in the section on the international broadcast. Moreover, no major improvement has been made to get rid of the repetitive hook.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We've never set perfection as the needed standard for ITN. A few unreferenced sentences in the international broadcast section should not prohibit posting. I have worked on this a bit so am probably too involved to make that final determination. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose although it's ITNR, the article is not in great shape. Bedivere (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * can you describe what the article is missing? Other reviewers here have indicated it is close to posting. Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support What a game. I think the article is ready now, the tagged sections have been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose At, the tables of records are unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just cited all the records (and removed a few unsourced ones). Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It should placed on there because it was such a big game and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready now. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Question Why is the current lead blurb (Africa Cup, which already led once prior to Super Bowl) back after Super Bowl and Finnish president? CoatCheck (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the images get rotated every so often by admins, which leads to the top blurb also changing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it was a dream or something, but I think I once saw 4 different versions of the main page with different images. Anyways, the rotation is indeed done manually to the template. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) African Cup of Nations
Heatrave (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The ideal target article (2023 Africa Cup of Nations final) is missing a prose summary of the match along with most of the necessary content.  Sounder Bruce  23:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Currently expanding the article on the final and it should be up to ITN standards soon. Just need to finish a few more sections.  Sounder Bruce  10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment We usually do not include any specific player unless they are noted as MVP or the like. A better blurb is otherwise needed. --M asem (t) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those we can include a key player as the item's picture should we post this. But again, we should be asking who the MVP is and use that person first and foremost. --M asem (t) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Added ITNR as per WP:ITNSPORTS. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose text summary on either the final article or at all on the main tournament article. Also, the blurb for this should follow the standard sports format which I've listed as ALT1. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (altblurb) Much updated now, prose of final added in 2023 Africa Cup of Nations final. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Black Kite. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: Kelvin Kiptum
The current world-record marathon holder. — xaosflux  Talk 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Fixed a few typos, not sure about the choice of putting the death along with the "early life" section, and maybe something could be done for the tables at the end. Nonetheless, a pretty well-referenced article, should be good to post. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support massive loss for the sport; would even support blurbing, but that will probably be a minority view. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - referenced. Updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD now- article is in good enough shape. I very rarely do this for a death, but with some expansion, I'd support a blurb- this is a current holder of (probably) one of the two biggest records in athletics, just reaching the prime of his career, and his death is getting lots of mainstream media coverage. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support a blurb as well if such a discussion will be held. Clearly a top of the field athlete.BabbaQ (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb too. He was just on ITN for winning the record. --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: I've also added a blurb, any improvements welcome. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. A tragic death-as-the-story case, and someone who was in the news for breaking the record so recently. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb "Unusual death" particularly as he was still an active runner, absolutely fits here. Article seems in good shape, though I would hope some short but reasonable reactions to his death (like a sentence or two at most) could be added. --M asem (t) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb particularly due to him being "the only person in history to run the marathon under two hours and one minute in a record-eligible race", as stated in the article. However, I am not sure if this would really qualify for an unusual death. For example, this source says that there were over 4,000 deaths related to road accidents in Kenya in 2022. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Certainly one of the more tragic deaths in recent memory.  NW1223 &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 02:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb—world record holder of a major sporting section BhamBoi (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * support blurb. he was just getting started.  after he broke the world record in only his third marathon, commentators were saying that he had still quite a bit of energy left in him.  it seemed like breaking the two-hour mark was well within reach.note that we have a picture of him breaking the world record in chicago, though it may need to be cropped if it is to be used on the main page.  we also have a photo of him breaking the course record in london earlier that year, which we used when we  the breaking of the world record to itn in october.  (full disclosure: in case it is seen as a conflict of interest, i should mention that i was the editor who created the "2023 Chicago Marathon" article.)  dying (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - unexpected death for someone obviously at the top of his field so recently. Proposed altblurb.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Unexpected tragic death of a young top figure in his field, and being the marathon record holder is mainstream/commonly-known enough. The   Kip  05:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, worldwide headlines. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Massive loss to the running community, and so young. Breaking the world record in Chicago would be the picture I'd go for. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have more details of the accident. This happened late last night so daylight will literally shed more light on the scene but there don’t seem to be any photos yet. And we need more time to clean up our coverage.  For example, it's reported that he was driving a Toyota Premio and our article about that says that it's only sold in Japan.  It's wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably that means it is only sold new in Japan... But in Kenya, a large proportion of cars are imported, often because it's cheaper than buying local new cars, and many do come from Japan, perhaps because they both drive on the left. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - the car could have been a cheap second-hand car sent to Kenya. This is a minor detail, really.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely support blurb if and when the article is ready. -- KTC (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a no-brainer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Unusual death, and the fact that he is the current world record holder definitely makes this notable enough. Davey2116 (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once article is slightly better and there may be more information by that time. World record holder and the future of marathon running dying like this is tragic, and unusual enough therefore to warrant a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Regarding a concern about a conflict with a Wikipedia car page, that page is largely uncited, and the WP:CIRCULAR policy states Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources... It's also unrelated to the blurb. The page(s) can be updated, as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Finnish presidential election
J I P &#124; Talk 20:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the position of power in Finland is the PM, so this is not ITNR (it was properly marked as not ITNR, just making this comment in case the question comes up) --M asem (t) 20:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - update done. Which article will be the main article though.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support added altblurb to address above concern This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb as per orbitalbuzzsaw. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support As per above, this is not ITN/R, and, as far as I can tell, this is the first nomination for the result of a presidential election in Finland. However, as stated in the article, this is the first election since Finland joined NATO, and, due to the Finnish president being the commander in chief, I believe that this is notable enough for a blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull - Finland's President is not the head of government nor does he manage the executive; he only has nominal powers. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support in part per 2G0o... The commander-in-chief is notable enough IMO. Either way, the monarch of most European countries has little power, yet we tend to blurb because it's still a prominent role. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull - I don't see this In the News in my diversified news-feed or as significant enough news event to get posted. No Drug No War (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I support this posting after the fact as well, because the President will have a lot of influence on the continued relations between Finland and Russia over the next coming years. The President post is not as insinuated without much power. Posting was a good decision.BabbaQ (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Then the blurb should really have explained this. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The blurb doesn't explain that the president isn't the head of state either. You are free to click on the link and learn about it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Confused. The first sentence of this article says, "The president of the Republic of Finland is the head of state of Finland." CoatCheck (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The head of state is the public persona, not necessarily the person with the greatest power. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So... the President of Finland IS the head of state, but not the head of government. There's a reason that's not ITNR. I still think this was inappropriate to blurb without some type of context given. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Election article looks good, but Stubb's own article probably needs further updates. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why the election article is bolded, and Stubb's isn't. Stephen 23:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Epstein
British pathologist, one of the discoverers of the Epstein–Barr virus. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Harold Mitchell
Australian businessman, media buyer, philanthropist and humanitarian. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Two CN tags, and an infobox would be a good addition. The   Kip  04:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now there are 4 {cn} tags, including a new one for the sentence with his date and place of birth. Much of the prose consists of paragraphs with just one or two sentences, so I wonder if the text needs to be re-organized a bit. The intro has only a single sentence, so that could use an expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Henry Blackaby
A bit stubby. However, I expect publications like Christianity Today and others to provide enough materials to de-stubify. Will probably need a bit of citation work as well, but right now, I'm working on Joel Belz. ❤History Theorist❤  00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I clicked on the first reference. I got a nice red "Deceptive site ahead" page. Support, I guess. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The books section was sourced by goodreads, which I removed per WP:GOODREADS. As per above, the first reference was a potentially dangerous link, which I also removed. In short, the article needs some referencing work. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 236 words of prose (not to mention that it needs more REFs). Anything else to write about him? An expansion is in order (with more REFs). --PFHLai (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Wigwe
The death of the Group Chairman of Access Holdings, his wife and son through a helicopter crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatrave (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully referenced. Updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(READY) 2024 Pakistani elections
Most results are in and Imran Khan is claiming victory in the election but so is Nawaz Sharif. Formation of a government is likely to be complex and take time but we ought to move on from the previous Khan blurb now. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Let's not overlook the fact that numerous foreign media outlets, including France 24, TIME, The Intercept, Economist have characterized the election was rigged by the military as they have done in the past, but despite that the election results have turned out completely differently. NYT went on to say the election results have humiliated the military rulers and has started a new political crises in the country. --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs a more neutral header. In the body of the article it can explain why that party winning the most seats is unusual or unprecedented, but its not ITNs place to make that call. --M asem (t) 18:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb as I think the "despite" in the original blurb is unnecessary. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per above. The   Kip  19:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the article is incomprehensible to me. I've been looking at it for 5 minutes, and I simply don't know what's going on. I say that as someone with no previous understanding of how elections are done in Pakistan, and who hasn't read any news articles on the election results, other than the headlines. For example, in the header box, it notes that all 336 seats are up for election. But in the 2024 Pakistani general election section it lists total of only 258 seats (declared?) with 7 left to declare. In the info-box it shows Khan as the leader of a party called "PTI-Ind". However that isn't a party, and Khan isn't even running for a seat and thus is ineligible to be PM. The references are whacky - what are [1] and [2] doing as references - surely they are notes. The "Seats needed" in the box is just confusing - everyone needs 169 seats. And getting this number by subtracting the 2018 results doesn't work, as seats have changed since the previous election. Instead show "Seats won", "Seat change". There needs to be a full table of results, similar to the 2018 election. At this point, I'm not sure the result is even clear. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There're a total of 264 general seats, with the remaining reserved seats [Elections are not conducted for these reserved seats.] Presently, results have been announced for 256 out of the total 264 seats. As for Khan's leadership status, he has been designated as the leader due to his association with the PTI-backed independent candidates. More detailed information on this matter can be found in the section titled 2024_Pakistani_general_election within the article. And how about we omit the numbers for now, since the legitimacy of many of these results is being contested by the PTI. --Saqib (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The seating is explained in the section 2024 Pakistani general election"The 336 members of the National Assembly consist of 266 general seats elected by first-past-the-post voting in single-member constituencies, 60 seats reserved for women elected by proportional representation based on the number of general seats won by each party in each province, and ten seats reserved for non-Muslims elected through proportional representation based on the number of overall general seats won by each party."
 * Thanks - I do think that one should be able to grasp this a lot quicker, and that the text be improved. Also, at this point the general percentages are done, so how are those seats being distributed ... and do independents even play into that. Ultimately, this is probably ITN. But the article needs work. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's quite a big and complicated topic and the article has been under development for six years. And so there's a lot to digest.  Here's what we did last time.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a typo, User:Andrew Davidson in that link. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. The previous election was marred by violence, whereas this one was tainted by daylight mass rigging. --Saqib (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ultimately, this should probably be posted, once there's more clarity. Which seems to have taken over 4 days last time. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whats preventing this from being posted? --Saqib (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The !votes here seem too complex and inconsistent to make posting easy. And the event is still somewhat unsettled.  The good news is that the article has had lots of readers regardless -- over 2 million views so far -- and so your efforts have not been in vain. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait until an actual outcome is known/a government is formed. Right now, the situation is unclear and posting that the PTI de facto candidates won the most seats doesn't mean much unless they actually then form a government, which is sounds like currently they won't. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the election result. We will post the government formation too when that happens down the road. See recent examples in Italy/Spain, for example. Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Having garnered significant press coverage worldwide, the election results deserves to be posted. I believe we did the same previously. Saqib (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait as per situation is unclear, PTI-backed independent candidates are joining other political parties. War Wounded (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So far, only one PTI backed independent candidate joined other party, contrary to your assertion that many did. And by the way, this should not be a logical reason to put this ITN on hold. The key point is that independent candidates backed by PTI won the majority of seats.--Saqib (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Saqib. Article seems clear enough to me Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I would say the PTI victory is notable independent of coalition formation. I say we cross that bridge when we get there. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose In Pakistan, elections aren't considered complete until all reserved seats are assigned. Once these seats are allocated, the dynamics will shift significantly, potentially placing independents in third position. Independents cannot vie for reserved seats, so it's prudent to wait until these seats are allocated before determining the election outcome. Publishing the story prematurely, as suggested, could mislead readers. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No elections are held for reserved seats hence their allocation is pointless to this ITN posting. No Drug No War (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reserved seats are integral to the electoral process in Pakistan. You should refer to the 2018 Pakistani general election page, where the party positions are determined based on the total of 342 seats, encompassing both general and reserved seats. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 20:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ITNR is for the general elections and not for the whole electoral process in Pakistan. Nor is the 2018 election page considered a bible. No Drug No War (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no final notification by ECP about the victory of various candidates. Even independent candidates did not join any party. Wait till the final position is declared by ECP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Election results are never put on hold until the Independent candidates join any party. Nor are the final notifications (which are withheld on court orders in some cases) a necessity for ITN posting. No Drug No War (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb2 or altblurb3, the ECP has declared all the results and as such this ITNR must be posted. No Drug No War (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb4, as it is more realistic and closer to the facts on ground. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 01:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced and relevant. Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

AFC Asian Cup
I think if AFCON is included, then Asian Cup should be as well Pksois23 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Oppose: Entire team section only has one or two sources. Map thing has a display error, I'll see if I can fix that Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether sports events are ITNR isn't decided arbitrarily; it's based on whether there's consensus at ITNSPORTS.
 * The Asian Cup is listed on ITNSPORTS Pksois23 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's not really an "I think". Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until prose summary is added (which I may do myself). I have modified the blurbs to link to the final's article, which is the normal target.  Sounder Bruce  07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeeez Jordan can't catch a break, losing in basketball a few months ago and now this LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Major notable regional sporting event in 5 years. So, why not? --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cyfraw See the text at the bottom of the green box above. Either way, the Teams section needs to be sourced. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already WP:ITNR, so only consideration is article quality, which is currently lacking. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality no prose match summary, which is a necessity before posting this. Also, the route to the final section could do with some text rather than nested tables and templates which are a MOS:ACCESS issue. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Hannan
Major League Baseball pitcher from 1962 to 1971. Co-founder and 1st president of the Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now More references are needed. Support It might be nice to have a bit more depth, but there are enough references & a sufficient amount of details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've added citations. I'll try to expand it more today before this drops off. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Damo Suzuki
Japanese rock singer known as a member of Can. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:5C1A:689:3A4D:64F1 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks to be of good quality, though the discography section could be shortened a bit. LynxesDesmond 🐈  (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go. Sources and quality are checked.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - article is slight. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Slight? Explain.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead was inadquent, and there was dodgy refs and major gaps in explaining his career. Is that clear enough BabbaQ? As an update, article is improving, nearing a Q/C pass for main page. Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality seems pretty good. Setarip (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Is this West latent pattern? Run it, says Damo's spirit.  ——Serial  13:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Tarver
– Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support not long but sufficient article. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did he have any notable accomplishments as a State Senator, United States Attorney or in his private Augusta law firm? Article is mostly a list of roles and election results, with limited depth otherwise.  Spencer T• C 05:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It’d be nice to have a bit more depth, but there are enough references & a sufficient amount of details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * rolls off tomorrow and is of good quality. The   Kip  04:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  07:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Reposted) RD: Robert Badinter
French lawyer, statesman and government minister known for his ultimately successful campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in France. The article still needs work. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready Still four citation needed tags and one failed verification, shouldn't be too hard to fix. While I wouldn't call the death blurb-worthy, he was certainly a defining figure of French politics, and a man of his stature deserves an article in good shape. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks fine now. @Chaotic Enby, Orbitalbuzzsaw: I've fixed the issues brought up. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, support! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 09:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per improvements. Referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pulled Some unsourced lines contested at WP:ERRORS—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the article’s issues. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've marked "attention needed" for others to vet (or post). The unsourced content has been replaced with newer content.—Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I’ll do this: Could someone please take a look at Badinter‘s article to see if it’s good enough to post? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I say re-post after reading the article again.BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reposted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Toddy Kehoe
65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks for nominating this! :-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 Haldwani violence
Article looks good enough to get posted. | 2401:BA80:A30C:7BB8:5C5C:46F1:1EB:FF3F (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nomination on quality As I am not super involved in Indian events, I can't comment much on notability, but there are a bunch of yellow tags relating to tone which need to be dealt with first before we post the article. ❤History  Theorist❤  05:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * • Oppose on Quality there are 3 tags when you open the page Setarip (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but support in principle. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) New prime minister of Georgia
His article needs a bit of work. I'm on it. Work done. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: However, as the nominator said, the article should be improved . Article has been improved. Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support change of head of government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a new administration change is always notable enough to post
 * Setarip (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to there still being 3 cn's. Support as the article now seems to be fully sourced. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for your work as well. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved: content expanded and RS sourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Prodrummer619 can you please take a look at the article? Thanks _-_Alsor (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It’s ITN/R & meets the quality standards. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a consensus to post. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. I have tweaked the wording slightly though, so the hook focuses on his succeeding the predecessor rather than being "elected". That has caused confusion in the past, given that this wasn't a result of a national election and follows similar changes of leadership without a general election, such as Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Much better, for sure. Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfred Grosser
Legendary intellectual, Jewish family had to flee the Nazis from Frankfurt to Paris in 1933, but he was instrumental in improving the German-French relations after the war, in the treaty as well as books and teaching. He also believed that a Jew doesn't have to automatically support Israeli politics. The article had a few life details and a lot of controversy, and few references, and many of those lost. So updating took a while. More details welcome, - for me there's RL and Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be ready for RD. Grimes2 (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Support article quality is pretty good. Setarip (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks great and ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Qristina Ribohn
Swedish reality television contestant, drug counselor, and politician. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Decent shape after updates. Looks good to go in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Balochistan bombings
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well-sourced and the event is certainly notable --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support A bit short, but this meets the requirements; for now, I think this should be treated as an isolated incident until a concrete link to the elections is established. Also moved this to February 7 as the bombings happened on that day. Vida0007 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article seem unanimous in having the election as the context for this incident:
 * "At least 30 dead in Balochistan explosions, day before Pakistan election". CNN
 * "Bomb Blasts Kill 30 in Pakistan Ahead of Thursday's Elections". Voice of America
 * "Pakistan election: Two deadly blasts in Balochistan day before vote". BBC News
 * "At least 30 killed in two bombings at election offices in Pakistan". The Guardian
 * "Bombings at Pakistani political offices kill at least 30 a day before parliamentary elections". Associated Press
 * "Pakistan polls 2024: Blasts target candidates' offices, at least 30 killed on eve of election". The Times of India
 * and so on. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

So, with such a wave of violence associated with the election, we should provide a more comprehensive account rather than cherry-picking two particular incidents 100 miles apart. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't the article title be 2024 Pishin bombings? Abcmaxx (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There were also offices targeted in Killa Saifullah, which is quite far from Pishin apparently @Ainty Painty Could you change the blurb's "Pishin" to "Balochistan province"? Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ainty Painty (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support well-sourced and significant. Setarip (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Really wish more than half the article is actually about the event rather than the kudzo of non-action reactions from world leaders. --M asem (t) 13:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the treatment is as a cookie-cutter disaster newsevent rather than it being properly integrated with an encyclopedic treatment of the Pakistan election, the Balochistan independence movement, ISIS-K fundamentalism and whatever else that this is part of. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this story at all, but even I remember reading of non-lethal violence and increased policing throughout Pakistan as a result of the election. Yes, the bombing does deserve a standalone article outside the election one, but here definitely could have more background as to understand why this bombing could have happened. M asem (t) 13:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See 2024_Pakistani_general_election which lists numerous lethal incidents including "In Balochistan, grenades were thrown at two polling stations by unidentified individuals. At the same time, a soldier was killed in an attack by gunmen in Kot Azam, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Five security personnel were killed in an attack in Kulachi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while a polling station in the same province was shelled by mortars. Two security officers were killed and nine wounded by a blast near a polling station in Lajja, Balochistan, while two people were injured following 14 "minor blasts" in Gwadar."
 * Improve Article, then Support The event is notable enough, but the article only consists of two paragraphs actually about the event (excluding the reactions), so this should be expanded. Support As another paragraph has been added to the article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems well sourced and this is an event that's on the news. Lukt64 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The blurb explains that this is related to the ongoing election in Pakistan and so is better than the current blurb about Imran Khan. But, it's not clear what the relationship is between ISIS and the BLA.  Is one part of the other or what?  Presenting this as an isolated incident doesn't seem adequate in giving the big picture.  It's the election which is the main story.  I'm opposing until we get a more comprehensive account. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would there need to be information on the relationship between IS and the BLA? The election is already mentioned in the blurb. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The BLA has been boycotting the election and seems responsible for numerous other acts of violence during the election. ISIS claims responsibility for these two blasts but what's it got to do with them?  As no-one has been caught and tried then WP:PERP per applies.  And as this is a contentious topic per WP:ARBIP, we should not be jumping to conclusions and acting like we have all the facts.  There's a lot more to say about this election as the results are now coming but are disputed.  We should wait for further developments and present a more comprehensive account of the whole thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aaron Liu. We are reporting the facts in the blurb. I don't see any jumping to conclusions. Trying to "connect the dots" as you want to do, is original research. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The blurb states definitely that these were ISIS bombings but this is not proven. And why should we give so much attention to these particular incidents when there are lots of others too?  It gives the usual impression that ITN only cares about a high death toll. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ISIS being the only one to claim responsibility is proof enough for now. Give attention because of the high death count in an area where such death counts aren't routine. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Terrorist incidents are so common in Pakistan that we have lists of them for every year and there are usually several every month. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. It doesn't appear that there are usually this much fatalities, though. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You do understand you're basically asking us to do WP:OR here, yes? The   Kip  19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, what did you mean by WP:PERP per applies? That link leads to the notability guideline for perpetrators. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support I'd prefer a longer article, but it meets the bare minimum standards. The   Kip  19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Overall ITN quality and relevance.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Could you explain how that wouldn't be OR? Why do we need that? Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about OR. Andrew is right when he talks about this not being a one-off. If we intend to blurb the parliamentary elections, that event can be posted in the same blurb. Pakistan is no stranger to terrorist attacks and we should demand more when they happen. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Any improved wording re: BLA can be suggested and discussed further. —Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Mojo Nixon
American rockabilly singer best known for his novelty hit "Elvis Is Everywhere" and for hosting various radio shows on Sirius XM satellite radio. thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 8:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The article has multiple CN tags --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Discography and Filmography sections are unsourced. There are about ten {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Fambrough
Last surviving original member of the American R&B group The Spinners. Funcrunch (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - Two CN tags that probably should be dealt with before posting. Otherwise good article. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Citations now located and added. Funcrunch (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been fully sourced. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient. And good to go,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Delbo
Argentine cartoonist. The article is well referenced, including his passing. Having inserted him at the recent deaths of pt.wiki, I'm a bit shocked to see that the RD here still have two people that died in January. It's 7 February... Solon   26. 125 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Seems decently sourced. I'm not sure if we need any additional sourcing for the bibliography section, but if not, this should be good to go. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 13:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to an unsourced bibliography Support as the unsourced bibliography section has been removed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @2G0o2De0l, would it be a problem if the bibliography section got removed? It seems to be difficult to source properly, and I'm not willing to go after individual references for each comic there. Solon   26 . 125  19:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Solon26125 I think that would be a good solution. I have done a bit of searching, and the only sources I can find that we could use are things like the Grand Comics Database, which are potentially unreliable. I don't think it makes sense to leave such a large amount of uncited information when there is no clear path to finding an RS for it. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @2G0o2De0l: ✅, section removed. Solon   26 . 125  21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of generally good quality --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cecilia Gentili
Argentine LGBT & trans rights activist. New article, but seems fairly well sourced. ForsythiaJo (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Decently sourced. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Appears well-written and sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be of sufficient quality. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support, trailblazer and huge loss. Well sourced/well written. Star   Mississippi  01:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seiji Ozawa
Did a brief check of article, looks mostly alright but it might need a bit more citation work. ❤History Theorist❤  19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination, - working on it but another one first. Any help with sourcing awards and such welcome. We'll have better obits. The article lacks music, imho. - I updated a lot, especially throwing out "refs" that don't work any more or are unreliable, but not enough to mark it "updated" (yet). Haven't seen the Washington Post, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I might do that, but I also got myself into another RD that I'm trying to update that's basically a stub and I have a music competition that I'm participating in today. Will try doing some source work myself though. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Awards section now sourced. Article in acceptable condition. Grimes2 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for doing that! added you to updaters, and Niggle1892 also helped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * today's obit from The Guardian now in --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * and FAZ from 10 Feb --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is much improved. Can anyone address the citation needed tag in the "From 2002" section? Flibirigit (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added reference to Associated Press article. Hopefully it does enough verification work when it says Ozawa is largely credited with elevating the Tanglewood Music Center, a music academy in Lenox, Massachusetts, to international prominence. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb: Sebastián Piñera
Former Chilean president. I second Alsoriano97's comment, a blurb may be good. --Bedivere (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support although an article is needed for the crash. Jebiguess (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can know only a Spanish news agency (Agencia EFE) is confirming Piñera's death. I would wait for other RS to do so. In any case, since it is a possible death in a helicopter crash and taking into account that Piñera governed in two terms, the last one ending less than two years ago, we could value a blurb. Also the article needs revision in some aspects. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BBC Mundo confirms (quoting govt statement). The rest'll follow shortly, no doubt. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The government has confirmed Piñera's death Bedivere (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I'm not too familiar with Chilean politics, but the death of a recent former head of state, especially in a helicopter crash, seems noteworthy to me. Of course, time is needed to get the article up to snuff, but I don't see any issues with notability. DNVIC (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support a blurb due to his importance and the manner of his death, but the article has some cn tags.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability While I'm squarely in the "maybe" opinion for former heads of state dying, the manner of his death definitely makes this a blurb-worthy event. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A recent president (which means more people will remember him) and unusual circumstances. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Recent head of state, notable life (protests, constitutional crisis), unusual circumstances of death. The   Kip  21:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the other comments. Unexpected cause of death. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (NPOV tag, as well as tense issues) but a blurb is reasonable here, more on the manner of death than his past. I don't think we would have posted his death as a blurb if it was natural. M asem (t) 21:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a current head of state or head of government, even if he was president as recently as 2022. I don't think that the accidental manner of death warrants a blurb. I'm trying to think of whether or not I would support a blurb for Obama's or Trump's death if it was accidental like this, but to be honest I don't think I would for Obama, maybe for Trump since he's also running for President again; or if Stephen Harper died like this, but I don't think I would support a blurb for that either. JM (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The probability that Trump, Obama, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter will be blurbed when they die, accidental or otherwise, is approximately 100%. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm just thinking about how I would vote. I've said on other RD blurb noms that I wouldn't vote to blurb Carter's death JM (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a former head of state and government dying in a plane/helicopter/car crash is more common than we think. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You...do realize we blurb previous heads of state, right? Piñera should be no exception.  q w 3 r t y  22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we? Where's the guideline or consensus? Would we blurb the death of Taur Matan Ruak, former president of East Timor? JM (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes.  q w 3 r t y  22:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt that. I'm sick and studying so I don't have the energy or time to go through the archives but I think it's highly likely there are more than a few former heads of state who were not blurbed, out of the hundreds of countries which each have new heads of state every few years, of which probably hundreds have died since ITN started. JM (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't. In fact we should not blurb Piñera's death if it had been in "normal or natural" circumstances. We cannot, and should not, turn ITN into a de facto obituary of former heads of state/governments. Get well soon, JM. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just saying "yes" without pointing to a guideline or consensus isn't an acceptable answer, as indeed, there is no guideline or consensus that supports your statement. Kicking222 (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We did blurb José Eduardo dos Santos when he died, I believe. The   Kip  22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per all above. Notable former head of state.  q w 3 r t y  22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Oppose on Quality Article is not ready to go due to an NPOV tag. As for notability, I believe that, due to him having been the first democratically elected conservative president in Chile since 1958, and due to his major involvement in the 2019-2022 Chilean protests (both points being stated in the lead of the article), combined with his unusual nature of death, a blurb is warranted. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also note that the President of Chile article itself may not be ready to go, having a number of completely unsourced sections. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb – the NPOV tag has been removed and no citation needed tags remain. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - recent and relatively notable head of state. The relatively unusual circumstances surrounding his death also make this worth blurbing. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - unusual manner of death makes it notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb by the unusual death criterion. Davey2116 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - the death of any current or former head of state is notable, in my mind. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - per above. Unusual death criterion could apply here, and he was a former head of state for until as recent as 2022. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Article is ready It appears that all issues with the article have been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 13:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article death and state funeral of Sebastián Piñera was recently created. ArionStar (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. Stephen 21:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Bruton
Former Irish Taoiseach (prime minister). Sheila1988 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Needs work Orange-tagged for NPOV since 2015. There's a bit of talk page discussion back in 2006 but more clarity on the issues is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose for above reason This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Andrew, there is an NPOV tag. There are also numerous sourcing issues throughout the article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment there appears to be no NPOV tag on the page currently and going through the history there never was one. Aydoh8 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The tag can be found at John_Bruton; please see also here and here. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * State funeral The BBC has been reporting his state funeral in regular bulletins today and so I'm surprised that there's not been more pressure for a blurb.  As the article will be getting more attention as a consequence, I've done some clean-up. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yemen's new PM

 * Oppose – because we don't have any information about him between 2018 and 2024. The gaps here are too big to be helpful for our readers. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality for now - per Mable. Massive gap in article between 2018 and 2024 that should be fixed first. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 12:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality per the two above comments Lukt64 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this would be considered WP:ITN/R anyway. Significance isn't really a concern here. Will say that Prime Minister of Yemen can also use some work... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ changed to ITN/R JM (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not R; the president holds the executive power in Yemen. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ITN/R. Not notable enough. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but hold until artcile improves This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability: the prime minister is not the head of state in Yemen. Less important, but while the Presidential Leadership Council is recognised internationally, it does not actually govern most of Yemen's population. Endwise (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above, the prime minister does not hold the executive power in Yemen, meaning this is not ITN/R, and the event itself is not notable enough. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helga Paris
Influential photographer of everyday life in East German, now a historic documentation in c. 230,000 negatives. The article was there, even most refs, but needed expansion and inline citation. I am sorry to be late again, but was preoccupied with three men, - hope this women will also "make" it. There's more in German but I need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - decent enough quality for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough, there is pitifully no work sample (picture) of the photographer in the article. Grimes2 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Dries van Agt
TiffanyAlThani (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose honorary degree, honours and awards, and politics sections all need citing, lead far too long. Multiple other sentences and claims in the article also uncited. Unusual subheading splits for a biography article too. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Tables after the prose are unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jean Malaurie
Thriley (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait several paras are not cited. Harvici  ( talk ) 09:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Long string of unsourced bullet-points after the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Michael Jayston
British actor of very long experience and note. Challenger l (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Sourcing seems a little sparse and citations are placed in kind of strange spots, plus there's a CN tag. Would support once these issues are fixed. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are needed for his many roles mentioned in the prose and listed in the tables after the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Toby Keith
Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose some sections aren't cited. Harvici  ( talk ) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The phrase "Three million spins" is not explained, and the reference provided is a dead link. And that's just from the first paragraph. Chrisclear (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * support! Very well known artist. More notable than most people in recent deaths lately 2600:6C5E:147F:858F:EC90:269B:E0C6:4127 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The RD line only cares that the person was notable, not how notable they were compared to others that were also notable. Its not a popularity/fame vote. M asem (t) 13:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on Notability — It is very clear Toby Keith was notable. Article isn’t in the best of shape at the moment, hence the wait. Actual “oppose” !votes make no sense, as an oppose is different than a wait and seems to indicate a true “no” to posting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * !vote changed to full support. Article is in decent shape now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: At least four entire paragraphs uncited Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One of these paragraphs is a possible copyvio. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve just discovered that even the first paragraph is a likely copyvio. Definitely in no state of posting. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The irony of saying "oppose !votes make no sense" while starting with "Support on Notability" when RD is not concerned with notability is palpable. Kicking222 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Waits are essentially opposes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment two {cn} tags remain, both in the "Early life and education" section. Otherwise, this article is good to go. Also moved this to February 5 as Keith died on that day. Vida0007 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the musical career section and most of the Acting career section are also unreferenced Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the 2nd paragraph of the “Political beliefs” section is mostly uncited. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are uncited statements scattered across the article, and I'm unconvinced that the statements in the lead paragraph are sourced elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a poorly sourced tours section, early life and education section, and various other unsourced claims. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on WP:ITNQUALITY. Aydoh8 (talk)
 * Aydoh8 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - No chance on this getting onto the main page as long as we have an ongoing copyvio investigation on a significantly large section of the article. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not that large (two paragraphs), though revision deletions are certainly needed. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Charles III diagnosed with cancer
It is not often a ruling leader is diagnosed with such a condition. This is my first ever nomination to ITN, so please go easy on me. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support it is in the news and article is in good shape. Worth highlighting. 2A02:908:676:E640:1529:50D8:AC9D:7F61 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even as one of his subjects here in the UK, I don't think this passes the bar. We've been given so little information that it could be very minor (or indeed, not). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nomination, but ITN does not typically cover the personal health conditions of most individuals. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith nomination, but while this story is (as the nominator notes) unusual, it's not got the sort of immediate impact that most ITN stories have. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, but not significant enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, as one of His Majesty's loyal subjects I'm afraid I have to say that this doesn't quite cross the line for inclusion (and it may not even be terminal).  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 19:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Many world leaders have had illnesses and treatments. It simply doesnt rise to the level of ITN inclusion.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 19:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing has been announced that would indicate that this is a serious health issue. If it is, we can deal with it then. BD2412  T 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, If he dies from it and the head of state changes then that's significant; the illness itself isn't significant. Certainly news, especially in Commonwealth realms, but not news enough for ITN. JM (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral wait until further details Lukt64 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Lavender
English actor and last surviving cast member of Dad's Army. (Don't tell him, Pike!)  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to an unsourced filmography. Support as article looks ready to go now. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sources currently in article don't cover all of the information. I've only looked at the After Dad's Army section so far but I've checked the sources at the ends of the paragraphs and they don't mention a lot of the information. Suonii180 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed a reference from the article as I think the publication has lifted the information from Wikipedia and is therefore WP:CIRCULAR. However, I've started a discussion at the article's talk page in case the information was originally copied and pasted from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. Suonii180 (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I have sorted the referencing out now. I know, should have done it before nominating but please feel free to say as Captain Mainwaring once said to Pike: "You stupid boy!".  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support quality suitable for RD. Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work there. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've added a potential copyright violation tag to the paragraph relating to the reference in my comment above as the two paragraphs are identical. Reference was https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/dads-army-star-ian-lavender-9078725. I'm not sure if it should stay posted on the main page if it is potential issues with copyright. I've listed it at Copyright problems/2024 February 5. Suonii180 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Elford
Australian rugby league footballer who played in the 1960s and 1970s. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support- due to its significance Jlvshistory (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the fourth time you have been told that RD has nothing at all to do with signficiance. Votes on significance cannot be counted and do not help review the nomination at all. JM (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strangely, @PFHLai also said that in Special:Diff/1205831588 before mysteriously deleting it Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * His database of played games and claim on surfing are sourced to what's basically a blog. Not sure if that's a showstopper. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Curiously, despite being pelted at RSN, rugbyleagueproject.org is still an official resources in Wikiproject Rugby League. That doesn't mean anything, right? Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of the claims also have a 2nd reference. I’m not familiar enough with rugby league to evaluate the quality of the references, but it looks like 1 of the other references is from the league he played in. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The rugby league itself is probably reliable, but the about page of Yesterday's Hero indicates that it is also a blog. I don't know much about rugby either. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, are you sure beach sprint means surf lifesaving sprint? Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Papineau (horse)
British-bred Thoroughbred racehorse, winner of the Henry II Stakes and the Ascot Gold Cup in 2004. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Closed but with a couple unreferenced statements.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like everything’s referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brooke Ellison
Thriley (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait-Let's should see first their comments, about this but the article is great however Jlvshistory (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support just came to nominate this myself now that more sourcing has come out. The SBU one is an SPS but fine for basic biographical details.
 * Star  Mississippi  01:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joel Belz
Founder of WORLD Magazine. Article's a bit short, but doesn't seem to have too many problems, although there's one detail I couldn't find a citation for yet. Will do more in-depth review later. ❤History Theorist❤  02:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support-the Article's significance Jlvshistory (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As said before, significance does not matter for RD. In this case I’ll weak oppose as there’s a dead link primary source and nearly nothing about his career, making this a stub. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the user has been informed twice before that significance is irrelevant to RD and acknowledged that in both instances - this is the third time... not trying to WP:BITE a newcomer or anything, especially as RD reviews are lacking compared to blurb reviews, but Jlvshistory, you must understand what Aaron Liu and others have told you, and evaluate solely on article quality in order to be productive in your RD reviews. JM (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aaron Liu I've updated the dead-link source to a live source. Reliable sources are citing the source I used so I dropped it on the wikipedia page. ❤History  Theorist❤  15:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thats good then, I guess adding more sources can also help Jlvshistory (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are currently only 203 words of prose in this stubby wikibio. Anything else to write about the subject? Where is the section on his career? --PFHLai (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now start class with 349 words of prose. I assume expansion would continue, as not everything mentioned in the intro has been elaborated upon in the main prose yet. --PFHLai (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the article, but I've got a lot of RDs on my hands, so I don't think this one will be ready in time. ❤History  Theorist❤  00:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you take another look at it? I added details to the body & I think it could be posted now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new refs, Blaylockjam10. --PFHLai (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think this has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about including the statement and death under publishing career, but I'm not sure about including it under the parent section either and it's no showstopper nonetheless. Support Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add more subheaders. --PFHLai (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a good subheader name for the two, and I don't think two sentences warrants one. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just started a "personal life" section at the end. Hope it works. --PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Beckwith
New York firefighter who received national attention following the September 11 attacks.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support- Because of the Article significance Jlvshistory (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - No major issues with the article, but additional sourcing prior to posting would be nice. Notability isn't a factor in RD noms. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * alright Jlvshistory (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Made the necessary changes. Checked the article against the 6 remaining references. Looks good. I don’t believe you will find additional references. Beckwith became famous because he stood beside George Bush when Bush gave his bullhorn speech 3 days after 9/11. What Beckwith did with his life after that is laudable. Wait I agree: additional sourcing would be good. I’ve checked 4 of the 7 references. Only The NY Post is unreliable, imo. The cause of death as "ground-zero related melanoma" is a “fake news” diagnosis by the NY Post: typical for this rag. Internet & WP searches never mention it as even a syndrome. That won’t work for Wikipedia. There is a page Ground Zero illness which redirects to “Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks.” Of course, the Amer. Assoc. for Cancer Research reports a slightly higher incidence of cancer for 9/11 responders. The section on first responders seems pretty damning and conclusive. Anyhow, the New York Times reports Beckwith’s death as “He died in hospice care after being treated for cancer.” I’ll edit the page in a few hours when I check back in. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements as mentioned above as well. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)'Italic text'
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Salvadoran general election
With 70% of the votes counted, some reliable news sources have called the election for Nayib Bukele and several foreign leaders have congratulated him, however, the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) has yet to make an official announcement. Please notify me if I need an official declaration from the TSE for this nomination, and if I do, I will update this nomination when it's publicized. This election has received significant foreign news coverage and is the first time since 1944 that a Salvadoran president has been re-elected. PizzaKing13 <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> ¡Hablame!  18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Not a single CN tag, a quick scan indicates everything seems cited, very extensive article, a large aftermath section... there's not much more to ask for, except that none of the results tables for municipalities and departments are filled in yet. I don't know if that's a barring issue or not, so I'll wait to !vote and hopefully someone tells me whether or not it's fine. JM (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that not all results have arrived yet, so it's less an issue about updating and more about waiting for them to drop. I think that we could run this as a first blurb, and that something more important to wait for is seat composition in parliament (which also hasn't been updated yet), as it would be interesting to note that the ruling party also has a majority in parliament. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, very well-written and cited, and should be ITN/R if I'm not mistaken. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done JM (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, splendid article. Altblurb offered: no need for the year, "incumbent" could be challenged (murky leave of absence business), and the stonking majority is noteworthy. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per Moscow. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 As per above, article seems to be of high quality. There seems to be some unfinished tables in the results section, but I expect these will be filled out soon when the results come out. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in great shape. The OP's blurb seems fine. We typically don't post the actual margin of victory. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * However, the margin of victory typically isn't over 80% either. JM (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Earl Cureton
Basketball player who won two NBA championships.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support articles looks fairly cited. Harvici  ( talk ) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. With his two championships and how he affected NBA basketball, both as a player and afterward, I feel that this article is worth mentioning in the "recent death" part of Wikipedia's news. Mungo Kitsch   (talk)  20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a Wikipedia article who dies gets featured on recent deaths as long as the quality is high enough. Significance is irrelevant to being featured on recent deaths. JM (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I don't deal with the front page part of Wikipedia that much, but Cureton's article is highly informative and worth the front page's time, IMO. Mungo Kitsch   (talk)  20:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mungo Kitsch: JM was attempting to convey that RD !votes should comment on how WP:ITNQUALITY is met or not. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously, as the subject's significance Jlvshistory (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that as said above, significance is not a factor in RDs, only quality JM (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * understood Jlvshistory (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of people being misled by significance, the article seems like it has no issues and no one has opposed yet. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Date of birth is unreferenced.  Schwede 66  15:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Date of birth is confirmed in all his profiles - NBA.com and basketball-reference.com - linked right in the infobox. Common info like height, weight, birth details, etc. are commonly well known for most professional athletes, at least NBA players. Rikster2 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: It's now sourced, but is a birthdate (or one potential Cn) a showstopper for an RD? —Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted I’m sensitive to unreferenced birthdays. It either gets referenced or it comes out; I will not post it to the main page until that’s resolved.  Schwede 66  16:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Grammys
Given the issues on the recent Emmy blurb, this article is likely in worst shape, needing more citations and/or reconsideration of what content should be on there (like # of noms/wins by artist, etc.) M asem (t) 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as mentioned by nom. Virtually no prose throughout the article. The   Kip  04:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Given what the Grammys are, which is a lot of awards, in addition to who presented and performed, this is going to be table heavy. There could be more prose around the ceremony as sites digest the information, but it is not absent prose and what I would expect pre-ceremony is there (nomination process, voting process, and general setup of the ceremony). But a lot of that is unreferenced, and again, while the award/nomination tables can be satisfied by a link to the Grammy's own page, the "# of noms/wins" we have determined cannot be left like that without clear sourcing to support it. It is a ways away. --M asem (t) 05:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to unsourced tables, particularly, which goes beyond simple WP:CALC. Collating information to find out that someone had 5+ nominations can be error prone. Better to be cited to a reliable source with the exact counts, which also rules out any doubt of an exhaustive table being some WP:OR fancruft (the few leaders can just be handled in prose, and undoubtedly already in reliable sources).—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Article indeed needs more prose and citations overall. The "Performers" section gives more details about the ceremony than any other, and it's all written from the perspective of when performers were announced, which is largely no longer of encyclopedic history and just recounting news stories. I don't think the article needs much work to fulfill prose requirements, though. Don't know how necessary citations are for the tables, though I highly doubt we'll find a source counting up all the acts that received exactly two nominations, so there's some original research cruft here that can almost certainly be cut. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple poorly sourced sections, and, as per above, the multiple nominations section might be OR. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A mass of tables with almost no prose. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lowitja O'Donoghue
Australian Aboriginal public administrator and Indigenous rights advocate. A highly regarded Australian. Her article is thorough, though it does have some cn tags. Several editors have been very busy updating the article since her death yesterday at the age of 91, so I'm hoping the tags will disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on a few CN tags, but as the nom says I'm confident they'll be cleaned up fairly shortly. The   Kip  01:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are still 3 CN tags. JM (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ready All Citation needed tags have now been addressed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be of sufficient quality. Every paragraph after the lede has citations and there are no CN tags anymore. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ready and has been ready. We ought to recognize efforts to properly cite and quickly bring an article up to quality. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  15:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Chile wildfires (Viña del Mar fire)
Significant event in Chile. Nearly a hundred people are dead as a result of wildfires in Viña del Mar, Quilpué and neighboring area. Bedivere (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, although a lot of the sources (tweets) could be improved and replaced by better sources if possible. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per above due to poor sources, but support on notability. The   Kip  00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Improve article, then support Significant event, but, as per above, the use of over ten tweets as sources should be changed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability  but needs to be improved per above JM (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC) quality is fine now JM (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but oppose on quality per @2G0o2De0l  Bremps  ...  01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the article quality should be improved before posting, as per above --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but articles needs improvement. Harvici  ( talk ) 10:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on Notability the death toll is major, and this is indeed very uncommon. Once article is improved per above, this will be ready. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: at least 112 now dead: . Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A disaster with a high number of fatalities. It is true that Twitter is too often used as a source, but by referencing tweets from the National Disaster Prevention and Response Service, a verified official account, I don't think it is dramatic to consider the article as ready to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is the way to go. SENAPRED is an official government service which is continuously detailing the disaster developing. Also, the articles on the SENAPRED website are recurrently updated and so, some details get lost/wiped. Citing tweets, in this case, should be okay. Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support it is indeed notible since over one hundred people are dead showing that The fire escalation is vast.3000MAX (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment as for quality, I've removed 4 of the 5 "better source needed" because per WP:RSPX if the author is a SME (which Senaprez is) then tweets are fine. There is now only one BSN tag and 0 CN tags. Everything else seems cited, so I think quality is good enough now. JM (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would the official delegation of the O'Higgins area, a government organization, count as an SME? Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's political or civil service, but I don't think it's an SME anyway because it's not specifically a civil defence / disaster relief / emergency preparedness / etc org. But it doesn't really matter for ITN because it's only one tag anyway and it's better than a CN tag. JM (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The delegation of O'Higgins is the official representative of the President in the region. The post exists since 2021 as the former office of intendant (governor) was abolished and its functions divided between the new presidential regional delegation and the reformed regional government. Bedivere (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Substantial disaster with a high death toll. The article does have some WP:PROSELINE issues but I think it's now better than our minimum requirements. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable and deadly wildfire(s); this clearly meets the ITN criteria. I also saw no sourcing issues in the article. Vida0007 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Quality is sufficient and it's clearly notable. Getting more eyes on it is probably also the best thing that could happen to it re: continued updates and improvements. Penitentes  ( talk ) 19:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Article looks Ready to be posted. Just wanted to note also, that this is the deadliest wildfire in the last 15 years worldwide, so it's evidently notable. --Bedivere (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * also see helicopter death above Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted with 131 dead as of right now.  Schwede 66  03:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry John
Welsh and British Lions rugby international  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 18:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support GA, article looks to be in good shape. The   Kip  19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The only things that really needed to be edited were the infobox, turning is into was and adding to the personal life section, all of which have been done. Helped rather nicely that it was already GA quality. <b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#fc1008">Commissar</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Doggo</b><sup style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Talk?  19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - in good condition Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support suitable quality. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support have now fully referenced. Article near FA quality. JennyOz (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Oleg Kononenko sets record for most time in space
Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Such records (which likely can be easily broken in the future) are not good for ITN. --M asem (t) 17:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has two unreferenced sections, and is lacking sources in many other places. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Describing it as "time traveling into the future" is okay for pop science, not for an encyclopedia. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Now He's travelled 878 days into the future. That .021 second is just a tiny speck of bonus time, relative to our lowly scores. It doesn't replace the more impressive number. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia that can be beaten in the future, especially the 0.021 seconds bit. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, maybe better-suited to DYK. The   Kip  19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As this news is better suited for a DYK nom than an ITN nom. Could definitely see it getting approved there. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, better suited for DYK.  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Senegalese presidential election postponed

 * Oppose: Doesn’t seem like an unjust postponement, which decreases its notability especially since the accused haven’t been charged yet and the headline implies foul play. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure if delayment of an election is notable in its own right. Did we post the Haiti elections getting postponed/cancelled/delayed, by any chance? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Still undecided, but there seems to be protests.  Bremps  ...  02:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Was the postponement of the Haitian election nominated? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't seem like anything has been caused by the postponement yet. Unless some significant event happens due to the postponement, or the election gets cancelled entirely, I don't think we should post, as I don't think the postponement on its own is notable enough. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The   Kip  00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment We should mention the resulting protests in the blurb.  Bremps  ...  04:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Already referred to as a consitutional crisis  Bremps  ...  02:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – I am impressed by the well-written description of events and reactions present in the article. Borgenland did beautiful work expanding the article so quickly, and it seems like a very appropriate feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I always try to ask myself what I would vote if an ITN item happened in the US instead. The update looks to be sufficient for posting.  Bremps  ...  21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Postponing an election seems like a significant event, esp. when it’s accompanied by protests. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Update: Formally postponed to December 15. In light of that length, I've proposed an altblurb and changed my !vote to support (altblurb). Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Senegal has been one of the most stable countries on the entire continent; as such, democratic backsliding in it directly affects the whole of West Africa. Article is in acceptable state. Curbon7 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced, sufficient coverage, good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted "In Senegal, the upcoming presidential election is postponed, prompting protests from the opposition.", a shorter version of the ALT. IAR regarding the fact that the displaced blurb is actually a day more recent. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seven "puh" sounds. I like to see it! Would hate to sing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure to post it. Pleased to see this on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted ALT3) Namibia's president Hage Geingob dies

 * Change in head of state/government, so ITNR item, and proposed altblurb. Reviewing target articles. The   Kip  02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if the vice-president automatically takes power until the end of term, or if there is an alternate system in place. If it is the former, absolutely ITNR (but the article has missing citations). Even with that, death of a sitting leader regardless of how the gov't changes would still be a blurbworthy event. --M asem (t) 02:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as most of Geingob's article is woefully under-referenced, including two wholly-uncited sections. The other two are rather short, but as they're not the targets that's less of a concern. The   Kip  02:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support once the reference problem is fixed Lukt64 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality due to 3 unreferenced tags, but when those are fixed, support alt blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Oppose it is not fairly cited when it is fixed, Support alt blurb Harvici  ( talk ) 04:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but yeah, this is going to need work before quality is there to post on the main page. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post the new president In such cases, we usually emphasise the incoming leader rather than the outgoing one. In this case, that's Nangolo Mbumba (pictured) as there won't be elections for some time.  The death of Geingob is not surprising because he was 82 and in ill-health.  RD will suffice for that. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That could've also applied to Elizabeth II.  Bremps  ...  03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II ruled for a very long time. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the cause of death is cancer Heatrave (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Man Lives Per Andrew, there's a new 82-year-old "ruling" Namibia and that's the thing to commemorate, not another death. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurbing new president as that's the ITN/R story, not the death itself. JM (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Created alt blurb 2 Seems the support is more towards Nangolo Mbumba then the former president, And the picture, if this blurb is used, is the one above this post in replacement of the one in the box. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 3, clearest of all the alt blurbs, whilst also showing which is the ITN/R event (the new president) as opposed to the one that is more suited for RD (the old president dying). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt3, same arguments as above. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R; suggest alt2 This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: Geingob's article is still a mess. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 as Geingob's article isn't featured and it is clearer than alt2 Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 pending improvements Geingob's article needs a lot of sourcing work. When the article is ready, my preferred blurbs are alt1 and alt2 in that order, but I don't oppose any of the proposed blurbs. I think the death of an incumbent is blurbworthy on its own, even if their advanced age made their passing seem inevitable (I am imagining how I'd !vote if this blurb were about the 81 year old Biden being succeeded by Harris, that'd likely be considered a notable death and not just RD-worthy). Maybe the picture can be Geingob at first and change to Mbumba after some time has passed? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 00:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What about a double image?  Bremps  ...  02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, I'd support a double image as well <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment might be a copyright violation. There's a lack of EXIF data and it was cross-wiki-uploaded right after Nangolo Mbumba succeeded Hage Geingob.  Bremps  ...  00:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can replace it with Nangolo Mbumba June 2023.png.  Bremps  ...  02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Bloomberg, the image is from a national ministry. However, I can't find that ministry's policy, nor can I find where they have it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor suggests that a new user was enthusiastic about contributing to free knowledge but forgot to check if their contribution was actually free.  Bremps  ...  02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I'm thinking about how we could perhaps retain that image, which is clearly superior in neutrality Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. The cowboy one is weird, so we can replace it with this image if we achieve consensus: Nangolo_Mbumba_(cropped).jpg. Upside is that the picture shows him in a suit, downside is that it's old enough to drive and depicts him with a black eye (?).


 * There's also a guy called Kashindi Ausiku on YouTube who uploads his clips freely licensed (praise be), and has filmed Nangolo Mbumba several times. Would appreciate it if you or anyone else looked through his videos to find anything suitable.  Bremps  ...  03:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah,the cowboy one seems much better in comparison. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bremps I don't follow Namibian politics much, and I don't know what kind of videos would feature Mbumba. Would you kindly give me some pointers on what kind of video titles from Ausiku would feature Mbumba? Thanks in advance. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6CNeKdBLk4
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kdISnMvha60
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6CNeKdBLk4
 * These videos are guaranteed to contain Mbumba (and are also freely licensed), though I haven't found any good frames of our guy. A second set of eyes would be great.  Bremps  ...  00:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be best to have both articles bolded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurbs 2 or 3 While I’d probably consider a blurb that has both articles bolded the best solution, alt blurbs 2 & 3 are the best blurbs right now since Mbumba’s article is the only article that’s good enough to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2 or 3 a death of a current head in state is always important enough to post Setarip (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Geingob was the sitting president and he should be mentioned in the main page. Scanlan (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support  This needs to be posted. It’s the death of a sitting president
 * 2A02:CE0:1800:32B2:7416:8B10:B877:7E31 (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment There may be clear support to post on significance, but the article needs sourcing badly before anything can be done. There are orange tags and that's going to block any post until those can get resolved. --M asem (t) 13:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can unlink Geingob? Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or write him out entirely and just treat this like a new president blurb (which it is). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We'd preferably want a good picture for that, though I suppose that could be an option. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb, wording changes welcome. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed "after the previous incumbent's death at age 82", figuring it wholly antithetical to writing him out entirely. I'm not sure I want a picture of the clear and present president enough to wait for one. Sometimes linked names are informative enough (especially when the What, When, How and Other Who are explained by the second sentence). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Burying the lede (that us, trying to the poor quality article on Geingob) is to me unacceptable. This is ignoring the death of a sitting world leader. M asem (t) 20:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But to not ignore that would be to ignore the entire situation. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why editors that want this posted should be spending the time improving Geingob's article. We have missed previous transitions of power due to article quality, we're not bound to post those just because it meets ITNR.<span id="Masem:1707446614838:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 02:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or, we can choose to not feature the low-quality article by unlinking it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the bolded article is the only article that matters in terms of article quality? If so, alt blurbs 2-4 are fine. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When this was first nominated it was Geingob's article that was bolded. Even with the alt blurbs that remove that, I feel it is completely inappropriate to skip over that as having a head-of-state bio article in that poor of a condition is just bad, it should be part of the featured articles in the blurb.<span id="Masem:1707485708098:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either we make that concession or we skip out of posting this thing entirely. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Too many paragraphs of unsourced prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Geingob's article is better, but I don’t think its quality is good enough yet to post as a main article. Would it be acceptable to post alt blurb 2 or alt blurb 3? Those alt blurbs have Mbumba's article as the bolded article & it seems like Mbumba's article is good enough to post as a main article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted a tweaked ALT3 to the bottom of the list on the ITN template. IAR regarding the fact that the displaced blurb is actually one day more recent. Geingob's article is indeed not ready, but Nangolo Mbumba looks clean enough (Earwig has no complaints. Referencing and formatting look fine.) to post. --PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) The Tortured Poets Department

 * Oppose good faith nomination Welcome to ITN. At the very least, we should post the actual album release instead of an announcement. However, the release of a creative work is seldom (if at all) featured on ITN due to concerns over being promotional. Cheers,  Bremps  ...  03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, that makes complete sense—I appreciate the helpful note. Bsoyka  (t &bull; c &bull; g) 03:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It also usually isn't big news that most people would otherwise search for on WP instead of, e.g., just streaming it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Taylor Swift announcing an album isn't notable enough for ITN. Welcome here, hope this doesn't scare you from contributing — it's never a bad thing to try! Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom, per above. The   Kip  03:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gregory Charles Rivers
Australian-born Hong Kong actor who appeared in over 300 shows. All prose is sourced, filmography was split into a separate article due to potential length. Yee no  (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support referenced, detailed. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Victor M. Power
The longest-serving mayor of Timmins, Ontario. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Article has 2 sentences about what he accomplished as mayor; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added another about eradicating debt from the city. Certain debt, anyway. Still pretty impressive, especially considering he said he would when he was elected (no small feat for any politician). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Moderate Support In the context of Timmins, two sentences of accomplishment is actually pretty deep. There's not a lot to say about a Northern Ontario mining town that hasn't been said. Like the logging towns and trapping towns, it talks the talk about walking a broader and more "forward-thinking" socioeconomic walk, but at the end of the day, it is what it is. If you ask me, that's how Old Man Noah would have wanted it, too. Boring, not soaring. More drilling, less thrilling. A fine town and an outstanding public servant here, in context (no blurb). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anyone wanna expand the single-sentence lede section a little bit before this reaches MainPage? --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, but only because I had to. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Wee Cho Yaw
Singaporean businessman. Led United Overseas Bank to one of big 3 banks in Singapore and Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.74.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose Article is poorly-cited, including two wholly-unreferenced sections. The   Kip  01:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples

 * RD only, not ready Not a notable event for a death blurb, but notable individuals are eligible for RD. This one needs a lot of sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No blurb, not ready regardless Not a notable person in his own right (neither was his death notable) enough for a blurb, sourcing needs quite some work done (orange tag + CN tags in the article). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - Non-reigning royals are generally not going to be serious considerations for a blurb. (I would have thought about supporting one for Otto von Habsburg, but he had had a long and distinguished career as a European politician largely separate from his ancestral title.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD Oppose Blurb definitely not death-blurb worthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality due to orange tag. Oppose blurb - a controversial figure, sure, but not up to the standard we typically hold for blurbs. The   Kip  01:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, neutral on blurb The quality of article needs to be improved before posting. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD when ready This is not significant enough for a blurb, especially because he was not actually a reigning royal. This is not yet ready for RD due to various sourcing issues throughout the article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb old man dies, ITN is not an obituary. JM (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb - RIP, Vittorio IV. But unfortunately, this doesn't warrant a blurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the notification, but is there any update as to when this will be added to RD? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - not notable enough to be listed separately from other RDs. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, if he was king or former king I'd consider it, but a prince with no history of reigning, especially with the abolition of the monarchy so long ago, shouldn't be given a blurb. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 12:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The article still has four CN tags, so some sourcing still needs to be done. I think it should be fine to post once these are dealt with. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:MtPenguinMonster Would it be ready yet? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aston "Family Man" Barrett
Decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Very weak oppose as birthplace is uncited. Otherwise, a bit short, but good to go. The   Kip  01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another editor has subsequently added a massive amount of unreferenced material, so no longer “very weak” from me. The   Kip  04:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced material has been sourced or deleted, so I'm a support now. The   Kip  07:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are four unreferenced tags, so definitely not yet ready to go. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Only 253 words of prose? That's a bit stubby. Anything more to write about him? After the prose, there is a long string of bullet-points that needs sourcing done. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now there are 326 words of prose. Still a bit thin, but start-class. Sourcing much improved. --PFHLai (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is far from 'decent shape'. I counted 4 orange tags and an additional CN tag in the prose, and there is quite a miniscule amount of prose. Please fix as soon as you possible can. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, upon nomination, the article was considerably shorter and only a CN or two away from posting. Another editor then added a significant amount of unreferenced content, resulting in the orange tags.  The   Kip  21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there anything preventing us from removing that?  Bremps  ...  01:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Unsourced content may be challenged and removed. JM (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @JM2023 @The Kip @Fakescientist8000 *Thanos snap*  Bremps  ...  03:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary, please check more carefully before erasing other editors' work. Funcrunch (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my bad.  Bremps  ...  03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done a fair amount of editing on this article today and have added some sources, but at least for RD listing purposes, I think it would be good to pare the discography down to a select sample rather than trying to source every single listing. Funcrunch (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't edit music articles a lot, so could you clarify for me whether it's the editor's choice in what's listed or is it something else?  Bremps  ...  04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about specific guidelines for discographies on musician bios, which is why I'm hoping others will pitch in. Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know the absolute specifics, but to be fair: if you can't find a reliable source to ref an item, as noted above, unsourced content may be challenged and removed. There's nothing mandating that it must be in the article. The   Kip  04:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I wasn't the one who added the huge unsourced discography in the first place, so have no investment in keeping it in that state. I just wanted the chance to add at least a few sources. Funcrunch (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've pinged WP:WikiProject Musicians and WP:WikiProject Reggae for editing assistance. Funcrunch (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - After leaving a note on the talk page with a copy of the mostly-unsourced discography for reference, I removed all unsourced entries. I believe the article is now adequately sourced. Pinging in case any of you care to reassess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funcrunch (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A random spot check reveals good sourcing. Nice work; support posting on RD.  Bremps  ...  02:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work on this! I've changed my vote above. The   Kip  07:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(Decision needed) New First Minister of Northern Ireland
I have decided to nominate on account of "assume good faith". Described as "historic" by several sources, although as for whether it is considered notable enough for ITNR, I'm leaving that for the community to decide. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR, I checked and this position does not fall into that which is tracked on List of current heads of state and government. There may be merit to indicate this being the first person from N. Ireland to actually serve as a Minister for the gov't of Ireland. (I had considered nominating this but felt this wouldn't meet the consensus here) --M asem (t) 23:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with a different blurb based on Altblurb 1. It's the restoration of power-sharing in the Province that's the main headline here, but I do think that if we blurb that, it's worth mentioning Ms O'Neill taking office. Contrary to what Masem has said, Michelle O'Neill is the first person to serve as First Minister of Northern Ireland who was not originally from NI - she was born in the Republic of Ireland. And she's also the first politician of Irish Republican affiliation to hold the post, which is what's being highlighted here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ETA: I would support altblurb3 if 'nationalist' were changed to 'Republican'. It's a less confusing and arguably more specific term. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the BBC source in the nomination, which is strange because other BBC articles say nationalist, all of the UK sources say nationalist. Additionally, there are three political designations in the NI Assembly; unionist, nationalist, and other. If we're going by the designations used by the NI government, Irish nationalist would be more correct than Irish republican. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support with a different blurb. As a NI native, the two most notable things about this are that we finally have a devolved government again after 24 months of political deadlock, and that O'Neill is the first Irish nationalist to hold the lead position in the Northern Irish government since the creation of the province in 1921. I'd suggest that the blurb includes both pieces of information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Following re-writes I'd support alt blurb 2 over the others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been added, I'd support the new alt blurb 3 over the others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While interesting from a historical trivia perspective, politically its significance is doubtful. Sinn Fein got all of 29% of the vote in the last election. The reason they hold the position of FM as I understand it, is because the unionist vote was severely fragmented. They are trying to pretend that this represents a substantial movement towards NI joining the Irish Republic, which is nonsense. A solid majority of NI electorate remain firmly unionist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like an unhelpfully partisan interpretation of the story, which is being presented in the terms used above by sources such as the BBC. The blurb, and the story, say nothing about the alleged political adherence of the NI electorate. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While interesting from a historical trivia perspective, politically its significance is doubtful. Hard disagree. O'Neill is the first Irish nationalist politician to be the head of government for Northern Ireland, since its creation in 1921. In terms of the history of the province, this is incredibly significant. If I may be bold in my comparison, this has the same level of significance within Northern Ireland as Barack Obama becoming the first African-American President the US. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your analogy if Barrack Obama had won election with 29% of the vote on a platform of uniting the United States with Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't directly compare vote percentages between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the US Presidential Election in that manner, as they are two entirely different electoral systems, with two entirely different mechanisms for voting. And the significance isn't that O'Neill advocates for Irish unification, Sinn Fein have been doing that pretty much since the creation of the province. The historical significance is that O'Neill has become the first Irish nationalist politician, of any party, to hold the position as head of the Northern Irish government. Until today, every First Minister for Northern Ireland and every Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had been a unionist politician. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this sounds like historical trivia based on an electoral fluke. I am not seeing the long term significance here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an electoral fluke. Northern Ireland is not a two party state, it is a multi-party state that has 5 major political parties; Sinn Féin, SDLP, DUP, UUP, and Alliance, and three political designations; unionist, nationalist, and Other. Since the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998, the highest vote share for any political party was 30.1% in the 2007 election. Sinn Féin's vote share of 29% is about average for all of the historical holders of the First Minister role.
 * The long term historical significance is that in the 103 years since the creation of Northern Ireland, there has never been a non-unionist head of government. Other than going into the deep, and contentious history of Northern Ireland and the intentional demographic choices made during the creation of the province to ensure there would always be a unionist majority government, I don't know how to state it in any other frames of reference than I already have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically every thing you have said here is misleading at best and incorrect at worst. Both the Republican and Unionist votes are "fragmented" as you put it, and always have been. There are numerous parties with distinction beyond their position on the union. As for "A solid majority of NI electorate remain firmly unionist" it is a plurality, not a majority, let alone a "solid" one, and polling neither asks and nor records a level of "firmness" in that plurality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is the end of a long political drama/negotiation in a region that is not sovereign. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Ground breaking major news, with the political wing of the Irish Republican Army becoming the First Minister of this country. This is the first republican first minister. And comes with the restoration of democracy and government in Northern Ireland after 2 years of direct rule by London. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support like others, on the dual significance of the restoration of government and the first republican first minister.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to nominate this based on the exceptional length of time that Northern Ireland has not had an Executive, and because it lets the Windsor Framework go ahead, which is part of Northern Ireland Brexit terms. The Framework is also part of the reason why Northern Irish political parties agreed to have an Executive again. In terms of the blurbs, alt1 is not accurate - power-sharing has been in place since 1999 and the creation of a Northern Ireland Executive. Every N.I. government has had power-sharing and it is not the reason the government has finally been restored. All of the others are fine for use, though alt3 seems bland and doesn't provide the context required for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Following further consideration, I have now adjusted the blurbs and removed alt3. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In future, it is better not to adjust blurbs that people have already !voted on. As alt1 has been changed, I do not outright oppose it, but it lacks some of the context. Kingsif (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 Based on comment above. I might prefer an alt that also mentions the Windsor Framework, but trying to summarise that seems difficult and it would make a long blurb too long. The length of time that Northern Ireland has been forming a government, and the first nationalist First Minister, are notable (as much as it is doubtful that the latter will mark a change in how the Executive functions since last time). Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose subnational. Banedon (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, while subnational, massive political significance as the first-ever non-unionist First Minister, advocating for Irish unification. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Northern Ireland is not sovereign (in any sense). A US state is more sovereign (in some senses) and we'd never post a governor's election. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you post a governor's election, if the governor in question was from a former terrorist group, and the state had been without a government for 2 years, with the President appointing a governor with unlimited power for that 2 years? Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if something like were to happen, federalism would be dead. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's kind of fatal to your analogy, then. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not. If anything it strengthens my argument; there's no such thing as federalism in the UK; its powers are devolved. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt0, alt1, or alt3 (which I've added above) and oppose alt2. The term "Republic of Ireland" is a bit odd for Hiberno-English and "Ireland" in indistinguishably the common name of the political entity in which she was born. While the role nominally subnational, it's also an appointment with important international implications given that she's the first Irish nationalist in the role. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As RoI is common, especially when wanting to make sure people know what entity you're referring to (the Island of Ireland is also "just Ireland", there is nothing indistinguishable about RoI claiming this label at all) I have to add that I would oppose alt3, the current version, as with this lack of clarity it could be perceived to be advocating that NI and RoI are or should be unified, taking a partisan stance at the heart of this problem. I also think it is incredible someone would fully oppose an alt because it is, in their view, too accurate. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a matter of local government and, in terms of population, is like being the Mayor of Greater Manchester or Governor of Idaho. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A local jurisdiction in an area that is not sovereign had a politician elected with differing political views from the norm. Think if a Texas secessionist were elected governor. Big news? Probably. Notable for ITN? Probably not. Same thing applies here. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I imagine that if a Texas governor was part of an international political movement to create a new country of Texas, and got elected governor on that basis, we would probably post that at ITN. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to imagine. We had a similar nomination about Texas recently.  That story is still getting plenty of international coverage.  In China, it's widely understood as a civil war and there's plenty of other international coverage too.  But it still wasn't posted at ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because the governments of both Texas and the USA are continuing to function normally, and the 'civil war' stuff is widely understood to be active misinformation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It still seems to be a big story at the NYT: At Rally for Border Security in Texas, Fears of ‘Invasion’ and ‘Civil War’: "Concerns over potential violence followed the convoys as the federal government and Republican state leaders appeared to be on an increasingly imminent collision course..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Fakescientist. The   Kip  01:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose due to this being a regional election. However, I might be swayed to support, particularly due to articles such as this saying that the election is a "landmark moment" for "the broader region". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what election you are referring to here, User:2G0o2De0l. There has been no election in years. I think you've not fully grasped what this is about. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what's frustrating about the !votes on this nom - a lot of the accompanying commentary shows a complete misunderstanding of the history and context. Some of that is probably deliberate, and some of it is due to ignorance. But it's not encouraging. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct in saying I have not "grasped what this is about", so I am just scratching my vote entirely. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose and while I agree that the appointment has regional and ethnic notability (which would also be notable in the Anglosphere and much of Europe), I wonder whether it has global notability. I think that a lot of readers would find it interesting because much of the native English speaking world has ties to Ireland and the UK, but I doubt that English speaking in non-native countries would care so much and Wikipedia has a problem with leaning too much towards native English speaking countries (and US events).
 * CollationoftheWilling (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN's problem is not "too much" – quite the contrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Historically important for Northern Ireland doktorb wordsdeeds 09:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support There's no point in comparing this to Texas, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Quebec, the Cayman Islands or any other example because Northern Ireland has a very unique history with a very unique political situation and unique devolved powers. It is however a "nation state", even if not fully sovereign, and what happens at Stormont is hugely impactful for both the UK and the Republic of Ireland; both of which are very much sovereign nations. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose she hasn't declared separation from Britain and union with the Republic. Blurb that, not the mere event of a Sinn Fein member becoming FM. JM (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty close actually: The Guardian - British and Irish governments play down Sinn Féin’s calls for united Ireland. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course Sinn Fein wants a united Ireland, but this isnt notable unless it starts taking steps to unite Ireland. Right now she's just FM and hasn't done anything. JM (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support whilst Northern Ireland isn't a sovereign nation, the fact the 20-month long stalemate has been resolved and their parliament will be back is notable and well covered in traditional news media. Whilst generally the appointment of a new FM of Northern Ireland may not be ITN worthy, this one is because of the long process that has preceded it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support – I like the feature of this subject and it is significant. I feel like the "First Minister (2024–present)" section on O'Neill's article should be expanded upon, or otherwise the 2024 Northern Ireland Executive formation-article should be boldlinked (eventhough it has the same problem). Regardless, the articles both present the history of the past two years well, with a few rich details. (oh, and I would go for a blurb that doesn't mention where she was born) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - The knee-jerk "subnational" response doesn't sway me, nor does the misleading assertion that global notability is required for ITN stories, a criterion which is not applicable to WP:ITNSIGNIF. When this election is framed in the proper context - the stalemate, the DUP boycott, the history of Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland, the role of Brexit and the Windsor Framework - there's a larger story here than just a provincial election. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What election? The election was back in 2022.  The big issue here is the resolution of the Brexit and Windsor Agreement matter and the return of devolved government.  The nominated article says nothing about Brexit and the Windsor Agreement and all we're getting is a dubious claim of a first.  Insofar as there's a larger story, this doesn't address it.  The significant news here is that the UK government has published a legal protocol for post-Brexit trade which the DUP has accepted and so power-sharing is restored.  O'Neill doesn't belong to the DUP -- she's in a different party and so her role is a side-effect rather than the main breakthrough. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * all we're getting is a dubious claim of a first It's not a dubious claim. If you check the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland articles, you'll see that there has never been a nationalist politician who has held the office of either Prime Minister or First Minister. All Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland were from the Ulster Unionist Party, and until Saturday all First Minister's of Northern Ireland had either been from the Ulster Unionist Party or the Democratic Unionist Party. Given the long and bloody history of the province, that the office is now held by a nationalist is a historic moment, and one that the creators of NI's borders wanted to prevent from happening. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the topic certainly has a long and bloody history on Wikipedia and so it is now considered a contentious topic. This means that we should "err on the side of caution" and the rhetoric below indicates that one of those CTOP banners may be appropriate too. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While this is big news in the UK, Stormont is a regional assembly, akin to the Landtag of Lower Saxony, Parliament of Catalonia, or Legislative Assembly of Alberta. We wouldn't post the leaders of any of those. The long interregnum is unusual and relates to wider issues, but those weren't solved by this appointment. Also, the assembly grants equal powers to the 'first minister' and 'deputy first minister', who have always been one unionist and one republican. They're effectively the same office, which is why we have a joint article about them. The only 'first' here is purely semantic, regardless of how much the parties involved try to promote their own significance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland is absolutely nothing like Alberta, Catalonia or Saxony. Firstly completely different type of devolution. Secondly a significant percentage of Northern Ireland's population doesn't want to secede but join another country that perceives it culturally closer to it than the state it's currently part of, much to the disagreement of much of the rest of the population. Also had a civil war which although over even in its guerrilla form, there is still ever present fear of violence, and does still occasionally happen on political lines. Lastly it is a nation state: it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which Great Britain is made up for 3 unequally devolved countries. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the politics of Northern Ireland and how the UK is structured; I'm British myself. I've even been inside Stormont, where I met several MLAs. If you don't like my analogies, perhaps the leaders of the Basque Parliament, Kurdistan Region Parliament or National Assembly of Quebec are a closer match? They consider themselves nations, have experienced wars, terrorist campaigns, and/or movements that want to unite with (parts of) another country. There are at least a dozen such regions around the world. I'm still opposed to posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If an independentist was elected leader of one of these regions for the first time ever, it would definitely be worthy of being posted. It's not just any election result. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: I'm far from a Sinn Fein supporter, but the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland since partition in 1921 is significant news, regardless of the machinations of how it came about (read: demographics). In other news, I find Ad Orientem's rantings obnoxious and -at best- confused, its a wonder he wasn't blocked. Andrew Davidson I consider silly and never expected more from them. And Modest Genius, do you really consider current political trends within the devolved governments of Scotland and Norther Ireland as irrelevant as those of Landtag of Lower Saxony? Surely you jest. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are unhelpful. As for the one directed at me, there was no jest, just a desire for consistency. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is subnational and Northern Ireland is not sovereignSetarip (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose Stormont is by design meant to be in permanent political stalemate; the logic is that if they're debating in parliament then they're not fighting in the streets. While being the first nationalist FM is certainly an important step, this was merely a political necessity due to the circumstances of how the executive is set up rather than a sharp turn towards 32. Curbon7 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the consensus to post this looking like? BangJan1999 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war

 * Support adding to "ongoing", as long as it's a replacement for "Red Sea Crisis" and not an addition. Nigej (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral but FWIW I'm not a fan of the article title. I posted on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hadn't noticed first time, but "spillover from" is surely better English. Nigej (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d note that “Spillover of…” is the title format used for multiple articles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, definitely OR to label all Middle-Eastern events as spillover of one specific conflict. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think it's OR to label as such, considering insurgent groups and Iranian proxies have labeled the war in Gaza as motivation for attacking both Red Sea shipping and American bases. Between the airstrikes and Houthi attacks, "spillover" is fast becoming a solid umbrella term barring some sort of generalized "2023–24 Middle East crisis." The   Kip  01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be wise to move the article to 2023-24 Middle East Crisis or a similar title, given that the multiple ongoing conflicts are inter-related and have causes other than the Israel-Hamas war? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OR isn't about whether it's obvious to deduce or not, it's about if reliable, secondary sources (which the Houtis are not) make that connection. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If all these are connected, we should be able to readily find sources in media and use their term for it. But I do feel this is more Wikipedians making this an umbrella term, the more I think about it, so this is probably OR to categorize them all under this. There's definitely indication that some of the events were triggered by instability created by the Israeli/Hamas conflict, but I don't think they should be taken as simply spillover, unless that can be readily demonstrated in RSes. M asem (t) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Improve article, then support The article, as I said in the discussion for the U.S. bombing of Syria and Iraq discussion, does not even mention that event occurring, and has 4 citation needed tags. When the article gets to be of a better quality, I agree with the argument that, at least for now, the events listed in the article really are "spillover" from the Israel-Hamas war. I would be particularly supportive of adding an ongoing item such as this due to it being able to handle the multiple different ongoing confrontations in the Middle East. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - should be one ongoing on the various attacks by Iran and Iranian-supported militias. We've already got one too many. Combine them all into a single target. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The link that's needed is the list of ongoing armed conflicts which includes the entire Middle East and more besides. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article probably won't work at least in the current form, as it doesn't seem to mention the Red Sea crisis or the U.S.-Iran-backed militias conflict in Iraq and Syria, which were the two conflicts that we initially wanted to include in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone added them in. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support bracketing it next to Israel-Hamas war. Neutral on removing Red Sea crisis; that should be separately nominated as an ongoing removal. JM (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Bit of a catch-all and nebulous concept. As recent discussion here show, it's not that hard to find an argument that claims basically everything happening in the Middle East is "spillover" from the Israel-Palestine conflict. The very fact that we are debating if the Red Sea Crisis is related shows this. Additionally, I would say "spillover" from a war is in a sense inextricably linked to the war and could be considered itself included in ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose No need for 3 separate instances of the Israel-Hamas war.
 * Setarip (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red Sea crisis is not part of the Israel-Hamas war. That's why the article was moved. JM (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Ready) February 2024 United States bombing of Iraq and Syria

 * Oppose This is covered by the Red Sea crisis, also referred to as the "United States–Iran proxy war", already posted onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a separate conflict from the Red Sea crisis. Ecrusized (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I may support changing the target article, but definitely not post it separately. It's clear that there's an ongoing proxy war between the United States and Iran, so it stands to reason to wrap it up in a single article which would be posted onto ongoing. There's really no need to post multiple instances of a single conflict. After all, the ongoing section is already full of conflicts, and it's perhaps the right time to verify that each of them should be still there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment After some thought, it's maybe worth considering to post Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war in brackets next to Israel-Hamas War in the same way as Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) is posted next to Russian invasion of Ukraine. This means that Red Sea crisis should be removed, as it's also considered part of the spillover of that war.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Red Sea Crisis was originally in parentheses next to the Israel-Hamas War, but was made its own item because of consensus that the Red Sea crisis is a separate enough conflict to be considered its own item. However, now that there are three different conflicts in the Middle East that are somewhat inter-related, it may be worth combining their items into Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war or perhaps Conflicts in the Middle East. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * List of modern conflicts in the Middle East is not eligible because as a list of conflicts it is not updated with the frequency necessary for listing in Ongoing. JM (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Iran-U.S. proxy war started years before Israel-Hamas October conflicit, the war in Gaza just made it worse. Actually the Hamas attack on Israel is a spillover of Iran U.S.-Israel proxy war. (: 3000MAX (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 100% covered by the Red Sea Crisis ongoing (unless the caption on that page is wrong that it doesn't cover the US-Iran issues, which doesn't appear to be the case (eg that is covered as well). --M asem (t) 13:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Many people are saying this is covered by the Red Sea crisis in ongoing, but the event in question is not listed in that article. I would support condensing the various conflicts in the Middle East into something like Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war in ongoing. However, this article also needs some work, as it, too, does not mention the event in question (some referencing work also needs to be done there). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we should remove the Red Sea Crisis from ongoing as to fail to make quality (incorporation of all the main events that are contributing towards it). M asem (t) 15:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Iran bombing US bases in Iraq and Syria has anything to do with Houthis blocking the Red Sea. Yes, both are related to Iran, but they're totally separate events involving Iran. It would make no sense to include Iran bombing bases in Mesopotamia in an article about Houthis blocking the Red Sea in South Arabia. The articles have separate scopes. JM (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead of Red Sea Crisis specifically says it is about the Iran-US proxy war, and this blurb clearly discusses the connection to Iran. The target article indicates its part of the spillover of the Red Sea Crisis. This is not being treated as a wholly new conflict in the media, which I would actually expect to have this as a blurb.<span id="Masem:1706975711503:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that both the Red Sea crisis and the article in question have connections with the Iran-US proxy conflict (which they obviously do), does not mean that they are the exact same conflict, or should be treated in the exact same way (included in the same ongoing article). The Red Sea crisis article is specifically dealing with the Houthis, while the bombings in Iraq in Syria deal specifically with Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, not the Houthis. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak and somewhat reluctant Support Ideally this should be covered somewhere in ongoing, given all the fertilizer that has been flying in that part of the world of late. But it doesn't seem to fit well in any of the currently linked articles. This goes well beyond the Red Sea situation. And it is likely the largest US military operation since the clusterbleep withdrawal from Afghanistan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine, definitely a significant event. Not covered by Red Sea crisis in Ongoing, or at least it shouldn't be, as its a separate (but related) conflict involving Iran and the US. JM (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, as this does not neatly relate to I-P or Red Sea ongoing, but represents a new US-Iran confrontation. Mach61 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, not close enough to the Red Sea Crisis to justify Ongoing. Yet another US-Iran proxy war. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support As per my comment above, this cannot be adequately covered in the Red Sea crisis, and other candidate articles for ongoing (such as the Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war) are not of sufficient quality. Even if they were of sufficient quality, this event represents a significant response of the US on the Iran-backed proxies that deserves its own blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support While it could hypothetically be subsumed by another article within the blurb, the spillover one is too wide in scope and this is definitively not part of the Red Sea crisis. I would support adding (spillover) as an add-on to the war, though, but that’s another discussion. The   Kip  17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. We can't cover every specific "spillover". If people are not happy with the "ongoing" section, we should a discussion about that, but to add a blurb doesn't seem at all suitable to me. Nigej (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another attack on another Iran-supported militia. Something similar is already listed in ongoing. Perhaps the ongoing target needs to shift to cover all the Iranian and Iranian militia attacks. Nfitz (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as it has global relevancy in an rapidly escalating "regional" conflict that has actors of virtually all the major global powers. I think numerous news outlets across the political spectrum and from all the major geopolitical powers have started to refer to a merger of numerous conflicts into one major conflict, so while this is not part of the Israel - Hamas war or the Red Sea crisis, it is very much interlinked with the two. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What is the consensus to post this looking like? BangJan1999 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced. Relevant. And definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oskar Negt
Influential German "New Left" philosopher and sociologist, teaching in Hanover for 3 decades after having been a mentor of the APO protest movement. The article was almost there but sources were missing. We still have no other source for early childhood but his autobiography, but actually - how would an "independent" source know better. More detail can be found in German and in the obits, but I'm not a philosopher ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready I've tagged a couple of things.  Schwede 66  03:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You wanted the date of birth referenced, so I duplicated it into the prose where the ref for it was.
 * You wanted refs for the publications, and I commented out the one in English that didn't have one (will keep looking). The German works are covered by the complete edition, no? Or do you believe I should add DNB (which is in authority control anyway)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support is now good enough.  Schwede 66  17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Wikipedian and former Wikimedia Russia director is declared foreign agent in Russia
Former Wikimedia Russia director, our fellow renowned wikipedician, university professor and lecturer Stanislav Kozlovsky was declared yesterday a foreign agent in Russia. Wikimedia Ru which was branch of Wikimedia already closed. This is very harsh label, it requires to specify in all publications that author is foreign agent, which is not feasible for university professor. While many famous public figures in Russia were given this label, in this case it is especially harmful, while he can not do educational work in Russia anymore. This event concerns Wikipedia, and not only because he won't be able to edit Wikipedia. This is a clear signal for Wikipedia in Russian language, and for people who edit it. There are many publications and sources on this, but they are mostly in Russian. In Russian Wikipedia, the news was already put on ITN. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. As horrifying as this is, it's run of the mill for the Putin dictatorship. See also WP:NAVEL.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:SELF? WP:NAVEL got redirected apparently. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was unanimously approved to be in ITN by community of Russian Wikipedia. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, self-referential nom that might seem more important for Wikipedians specifically, but ITN isn't about Wikipedia-related news more than any other news. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This feed is Wikipedia's "In the News", not "Wikipedia's in the news". GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, as well as we should not be giving any "WP"-related topic special consideration for ITN. --M asem (t) 00:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

RD: Wayne Kramer (guitarist)
Guitarist and co-founder of MC5. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:9D18:87AB:E445:1974 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll work on sourcing the discography, but the article has significant sourcing issues in a lot of other places. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significant sourcing issues in the article with an orange tag make this one no bueno, I'm afraid. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Poonam Pandey
Indian model and actress Lekhak93 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough to be in the recent deaths LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post, as per policy. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the policy, I'm curious to know how this person is "not notable enough to be in the recent deaths" but is somehow notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. --Bedivere (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. As noted above, the relevant guidelines state Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. The article meets the standards for updated content, significance, and quality. Einsof (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of generally good quality and is well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. --Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jonnie Irwin

 * Weak oppose Added two minor CN tags, but for the most part the article's in good shape. The   Kip  23:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an explicitly invalid reason to oppose a nomination. The relevant guidelines say that one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. Einsof (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BLP articles are held to a higher standard and in practical terms we always require cleanup of CN tags before posting to RD. The   Kip  04:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Provide a link to written policy or to a talk page discussion that reached that consensus. Einsof (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite literally from the page you’ve linked:
 * Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources.
 * additionally, from WP:BLP:
 * Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.
 * And again, it’s always been practice here to require that BLPs are fully sourced, regardless of whether that’s definitively written down somewhere. Again, not to WP:BITE but many of us have been participating on this page for a long time; you appear to be new to it. The   Kip  15:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article meets relevant standards for updated content, significance, and quality. Einsof (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, no longer unreferenced material in the article. Suonii180 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Najib Razak's partial pardon
Nominator's comments: Significant news in Malaysia, as one of the world's most notably corrupt politicians has had his sentence halved. Tofusaurus (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Sources look good, and a former PM. Yoblyblob (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - major national news in a country, Oppose on quality, some citations needed. — Knightof  theswords  17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is an amusing combo with the nomination for the new King of Malaysia, who supposedly has no power. But neither the article nor its source make it clear whether this was the outgoing or incoming king.  And it's also an amusing combo with the sentencing of Imran Khan which also seems to be determined in a similar "pick a number, double it then halve it..." basis.  It seems simpler to just report when these top tier guys get sent to jail or are released.  This guy is still in prison and staying there for some years yet, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "neither the article nor its source make it clear whether this was the outgoing or incoming king" - yes it does. It's right there in the relevant section of the article. I'm neutral on the nomination itself, but I wish to draw ITN regulars' attention to yet another incoherent and inaccurate comment from Andrew Davidson. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point – I missed that somehow in my first reading. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doesn't change the fact he was already imprisoned. I don't think we've ever posted a pardon following incarceration. (overtunred convictions before incarceration, yes). --M asem (t) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: should be made clear in the blurb that it was from the old king Abdullah of Pahang. I'd support posting it if the pardon led to his release, but it appears that Najib is early enough in his sentence to still be in prison (edited 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)) Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While yes he is an extremely corrupt politician his influence was largely only relevant to Malaysia. Masem is correct was when i went through the archives I do not recall seeing any pardons as far as August 2021 Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nearly no significance at all.  nableezy  - 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see why someone having their sentence reduced, but still having a sentence for multiple years, is significant. The significance seems to be with the initial sentence, not with the reduction. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. WP:SNOW might be taking effect. The   Kip  21:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Nowhere near the significance required for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and move for SNOW This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Murder of Brianna Ghey
Article was included in recent deaths back in February 2023 under its former title. The conviction of the teens last month was covered by all major UK news publications, as well as The NY Times, AP News, and The Washington Post The sentencing of the two teens has been covered by all major UK news publications, and ABC Australia. Content on the conviction and sentencing has already been included, and more is being added as additional sources are published. The significance of this is perhaps best summed up by Justice Yip's statement that the murder was "sadistic in nature and where a secondary motive was hostility towards Brianna because of her transgender identity." (The Guardian) Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 20 or life which is it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Life, with a minimum sentence of 22 years for the girl, and 20 years for the boy. I realise now that I worded blurb 1 really badly. I'll tweak it in a moment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In America we call that 20 to life and 22 to life. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom. We posted the murder. There is nothing unusual about the convictions and/or sentences that justify blurbing the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose posted to RD, so the article was already featured for the same event; also, I know there is no minimum deaths, but ITN has sometimes refused to post mass shootings. I'm not seeing how sentencing for the killing of one person is significant enough for the main page without it being a public figure. Is this really major front-page news? JM (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes this is really major front page news on the UK. Every major UK news publication has at least one article on the sentencing on their websites. Both The Guardian and The Telegraph are running front page stories on it on Saturday's printed editions. Due to the public interest, the sentencing hearing was broadcast by Sky News and BBC Radio 4, something that is quite unusual for a crime of this nature. The killing itself has been described as particularly sadistic in nature, with a secondary motive being anti-trans hatred. Killings perpetrated by teens are also pretty unusual in the UK.
 * Were this a crime in the US, or another country where mass shootings are sadly common place, I'd agree that this wouldn't meet the ITN criteria. But I think you have to judge news from each country by their relative standards for what is or is not common or routine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I don't see anything significant in the sentencing in this case. The significance would come from the event itself, not the trial. In addition, as stated above, we have already posted this to RD, which I think is sufficient coverage for this event. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Weathers
Died three days ago, just announced. Not ready for the usual reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Deadline article is confusing. Did he die on Thursday, or Tuesday? died Tuesday, his family announced. He was 76. “We are deeply saddened to announce the passing of Carl Weathers,” his family said in a statement. “He died peacefully in his sleep on Thursday, February 1st, 2024 Is the "Tuesday" mention a typo? Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed that. They probably meant Thursday but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Other sources are saying Thursday. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the usual reason of an uncited filmography. RIP to an absolute legend. The   Kip  20:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. A legend in the film industry who has played in multiple movies and shows LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just FYI (also based on your !vote on another RD nom on significance) RD is not about significance or being a "legend", it's about whether the article is front page quality or not. RD works differently than blurbs. JM (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but when you get those citations straightened out, then baby, you've got a stew! Danthemankhan 23:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unsourced material. Damn. Just got the vinyl albums for first four Rocky films yesterday as a belated Christmas gift. RIP. — Knightof  theswords  23:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks fine. Don't know where this idea arose that you can't post anything with an undercited filmography section, but it seems excessive. Einsof (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to WP:BITE a newcomer to ITN/C, but RDs are required to be fully-cited. It’s just how we do it, especially considering BLP standards. Your insistence that these articles missing citations “look fine” aren’t helping. The   Kip  05:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More specifically BLPs (which include BDPs) are supposed to be fully cited, so that extends to RDs for all purposes. It is a shame that entertainer articles don't see the same care and rigor that most other BLP areas typically see, but that's a long-standing problem on WP.<span id="Masem:1706968023203:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNQUALITY reads, among other things, that —Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There are plenty of obits to source the article, see Guardian. Top news on Variety. In Sly's tribute there are also some facts. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Filmography has been cited, so the article is now ready to go. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Article seems good to go. The   Kip  19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment, notice that the last references added point to IMDB (a non-RS). Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have deleted them just now, please consider to pull it till new sources are found. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) F1 7 time world champion Lewis Hamilton makes shock move to Ferrari for 2025

 * Oppose Fairly trivial sports news. The   Kip  19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Opppse we don't post things like sports trades or similar moves, barring exceptions for cost records. M asem (t) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sportsman moves from one team to another. Difficult to imagine any such move being suitable for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)