Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2022

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

RD: Pierre Bellon

 * Oppose per nom, needs expanding.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This 200-word stub needs a quick expansion before its eligibility expires later today. --PFHLai (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Johnson (blues guitarist)

 * Support Short but adequate and solidly referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, no issues and ready to go. Flibirigit (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Nykoluk

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article, g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Partygate

 * Wait it's been all of 5 minutes since it was announced that the report had been released. No details of the report have yet been given. Unless there's a significant impact like it causes the PM to resign, then don't think this is ITN-worthy. Certainly too soon to be guessing the impact of this report. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. We don't know what it says yet, and it is not the complete report as the police requested some information be held back as to not affect their investigation. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a report, its an update and contains very little information. I would certainly dispute the altblub's use of the words "detailing" and "findings": there are none of either. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and...what? What's next? The only news worthy for MP is Johnson's resignation and the appointment of a new British PM. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The "report" is here. Am struggling to see one single fact that wasn't previously fully known in the public domain. And the startling "conclusion": "There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded." Wow, I bet Boris is busy packing his bags even as we speak. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She is extremely limited in what I can say about those events and it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information I have been able to gather. Wow what a political bombshell.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently Boris and Co are still busy building 40 hospitals. But refreshing to get a mention of Jimmy Savile. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. So it's been published. What's it say? Does a "serious failure of leadership" mean bye-bye Boris? – Sca (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We get to hear Boris speak in 10 minutes. Don't hold your breath. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No prob. Just had time to grab some popcorn before the entertainment began. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless Johnson is forced from office over it. At the moment this is a minor political scandal and we don't usually do domestic politics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Oh, he's going to "get on with the job," make changes, etc. – Sca (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) →


 * Comment What the heck is this anyway? --WaltCip- (talk)  15:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't the actual, full report and it hasn't actually led to any tangible changes (i.e. Boris resigning, which would be the event which merits a blurb).--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait it's a rapidly developing story, and not as minor as some make it out to be. Would "Watergate" make it onto here? Yes. Would any major scandal involving the leader and most if not all of any country's cabinet make it? Yes. Pandemic restrictions and government handling a global issue? Certainly. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Watergate was a full on crime and coverup that resulted in the resignation of the president and the convictions and jail sentences of many of his top people, so apples and oranges aside from the -gate suffix. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until this results in a leadership change; if it doesn't it's much ado about nothing. -- Jayron 32 16:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the full report as the criminal investigation is still ongoing. And Boris hasn't gone yet.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Watergate was more interesting. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not think we should be downplaying the importance and scale of corruption and severity of callousness just because that is what those accused are doing, waiting for ever more investigations. That is exactly what is happening and we should be impartial and not falling for this line of defence; "not a full report", "still police matter", "no-one resigned" are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now he's running against Putin. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "not a full report", "still police matter", "no-one resigned" are irrelevant to the issue at hand. These are exactly the measures of importance that we use for ITN. The fact that a 12 page report has been published which tells people basically nothing, and the impact of which is currently low is exactly the reason why this shouldn't be posted now. If there is an important fallout/consequences from this, then and only then should this be posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. This is a big scandal, but the report says, in effect, 'I can't report anything because the police are investigating'. If/when Johnson resigns we should post a blurb, not yet. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now If/when the former host of Have I Got News For You resigns, then come back to it. But bring a suitcase full of booze when it happens.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there seems to be nothing significant coming out of this at present. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonard Fenton
Support Tags all done. Ready to be posted. DobermanPincherDeirdre (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support referencing looks to be there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1 CN tag to be resolved.  Spencer T• C 18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Green tick.svg Done: Should be ready now DobermanPincherDeirdre (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Portuguese legislative election

 * Support Not change of head of gov, but still de facto ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note, WP:ITN/R includes general election results. Joofjoof (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as de facto ITN/R, as it is itself literally a rule.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Updated the blurbs. It looks like the constituency-level results are still being released. Joofjoof (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The tables need to be updated with results and there should be a Reactions or Aftermath section, otherwise this is ITNR. --Tone 08:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality until results added and some text is added about the outcome aftermath. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The results tables lists every party as 0%, there's no prose on the outcome, reactions to the unexpected majority etc. Needs work before it can be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added the reaction of every party leader to the aftermath section. Given as the Socialists have a majority, there won't be any coalition negotiations like in the German election, so that's about all unless there are any more resignations. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's good enough prose for me, struck above. The table still needs final percentages though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment, , I expanded the article, and someone added the full results, article should be ready now. BastianMAT (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt1. Looks good to me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... Alt1 – Article looks acceptable, if only just. – Sca (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, nice work! --Tone 19:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose/pull on quality. There is actually no prose on the policies/campaigning/analysis. Only information on voting procedures and rewording voting stats Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I think the quality is OK. There could be a bit more on campaigning, certainly, but the basics are there and there is a prose summary of the results and reactions, which sometimes these things lack. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeffrey A. Hutchings

 * User:Stephen It seems it should be written here that it was posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonid Kuravlyov

 * Comment: Needs a couple references, and some section headers would also be ideal.  Spencer T• C 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Added sources. I suppose it is ready. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norma Waterson

 * Not Quite Ready Just a couple CN tags and should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Refs now added for those two, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have any issues, even minor ones, by all means raise at Talk:Norma Waterson. Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. K. Paramasivan

 * Comment: I'm not too familiar with the subject, but is his work with the Aavin milk cooperative part of what he did as a member of the Third Lok Sabha? If not, article needs more info about what he did as a member of the Third Lok Sabha.  Spencer T• C 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Added more information about his role in the third Lok Sabha. Please have a look. Should be good imo. Ktin (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs a reference for the quote about his milk activities, then good to go. Stephen 22:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Done. Reintroduced ref. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Australian Open

 * Not ready. There is no prose on the actual sport - just a table of winners. The article spends more time talking about Djokovic's vaccination status than it does about the tennis. The individual articles on the men's and women's singles don't have any prose either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as per Modest Genius, we need some actual text on the tennis itself e.g. summary of the main competitions. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. A prose summary is required for each of the events that took place within the tournament. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeff Innis

 * Support. Sourced, with the expected level of coverage for a subject. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well referenced. No issues. Marking as "Ready." -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cheslie Kryst

 * Support - Looks sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jo Kendall

 * Oppose Work needed on referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also missing anything on her life after 1993. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Les Shapiro

 * Support Relatively short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rashid Byramji

 * Comment: "Later, his father, Rustomji Byramji, would take up training the horses" seems a little out of place as written; once sentence is re-written to clarify what this means (or removed), support.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Please have a look at your convenience. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. The problematic sentence pointed out by has been revised. The rest of the wikibio looks fine. --PFHLai (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sam Lay

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Green (baseball)

 * Obviously long enough with 1026 words of readable prose. Formatting looks fine. There seems to be enough footnotes across the prose. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article, well referenced, no issues. Marking as "Ready." -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Howard Hesseman

 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will need some work before this can be posted. Not bothering with CN tags. There would be too many. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I had seriously considered nominating this myself. Fortunately, as the article itself shows, he was a prolific actor and performer.  Unfortunately, lack of sourcing is a problem.  I've been through this many times before at ITN; been there and done that.  It is one of the perverse results at ITN.  I expect there will be a lot of hits on this article, without Wikipedia main page exposure.  In any event, a great source is the  ... “Howard Hesseman, who made a career out of portraying off-the-wall characters, none more popular than the disc jockey Johnny Fever on the sitcom WKRP in Cincinn...” That source can fill in at least some of the blanks.  I missed that it had been updated at the article.  I will fix the citation. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Mellanby

 * Support Adequate article, somewhat big name. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) January 2022 North American blizzard

 * All storms are disruptive; we usually wait until an estimate of damage and casualty figures are known. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barring any serious death toll, it is the middle of winter, blizzard in the NE are common place and losing power during them is a first-world problem. --M asem (t) 21:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has not been updated sufficiently; it is mostly written in anticipation of the storm. Also I got a few inches of snow but didn't lose power, so not much of an impact. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Here we go again...Can't anyone take a look at what positions there are around here on nominations related to natural disasters before nominating them? If a storm doesn't cause a substantial number of fatalities, it's not ITN-worthy no matter where it happens. And no matter how many thousands don't have electricity...it's a blizzard and these things happen. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose More people died in a storm in the UK today. A different storm in the UK earlier this season cut the power to Scotland and northern England for days. Even the UK and they're not being nominated. Because winter storms be winter storms. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Blowing & snowing. Glad I'm not there.  – Sca (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Once the blowing stops, fresh driven snow can be alright, even quite alright indeed. See that guy on the skis? He regrets nothing! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Article quality is not good enough to post. When we get more updates on damages, casualties, etc., and the article is updated appropriately, I'll reassess. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Muboshgu but leaning oppose. This will have to turn into something a lot bigger than it is currently looking for me to support. Winter storms happen in winter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not particularly notable as far as winter storms goes. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Quite the storm all right, with much photo & vid coverage, but now it's down to staying warm and digging out. Unaware of any reported fatalities yet.   – Sca (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Tom Brady retirement
M asem (t) 20:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm aware this nomination thread will become a calamity due to it being a U.S.-centric item and the NFL to boot. But there are few sportsmen who can legitimately place themselves in the ranks of "greatest of all time", no matter what the sport, unlike Tom Brady.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose At least with Ferguson and Tendulkar, we're talking international sport and play, so there's a bar of comparison across the globe. With gridiron football, its very limited, and many will argue if Brady is the best of all time there (compared to others like Joe Montana, etc.). --
 * There's no longer any real comparison between Brady and Montana or any other QB. Montana was the most important player on 4 Super Bowl-winning teams. Brady was the most important player on 7, with 3 other teams that went to the Super Bowl. Brady essentially had a second Hall of Fame career after the age of 38 when Montana retired. It could be argued that Montana faced more restrictive rules and defenses than Brady did, but Brady also accomplished his 7 titles in a league with a salary cap, free agency, and more overall parity than Montana dealt with. There really isn't any serious argument against Brady being the best ever to play the game. 65.24.244.191 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gridiron football is played internationally. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere close to the levels of cricket or association football. --M asem (t) 20:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. I can't wait to see the retirement of the best player in the history of petanque nominated. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WaltCip. It's certainly in the news, even internationally. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is there international coverage? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, while not the top story on any, it's on the front page of skysports.com, L'Equipe, and La Gazzetta dello Sport. 65.24.244.191 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To add, this is not confirmed. Eg ; all the sources are reported on "inside reports". --M asem (t) 20:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose No retirements of sports players in sports that are not genuinely international Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the lack of competition in the sport and therefore the lack of justification for posting a retirement, but thanks for admitting that this is a one-country sport. Your extreme parochialism is well-known Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly does that mean? I make great effort to set aside my personal biases and support nominations irrespective of where they are from. Who exactly am I "well known" among? I take offense at your comment. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the level of competition is so high in cricket then why is the best player a batsman 67% better than anyone else? That doesn't usually happen in the most competitive sports. Why is it that some from countries of parochial population and acreage think sub-international always means "lack of competition"? It's the most popular sport in a country of a third of a billion people and $22 trillion GDP (almost as big as the Eurozone). The country is also the size of Europe. While full UN members can of course be the population and GDP of a small town, some are. Borders are just an accident of history. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A sports player retiring, even one as good as Brady, doesn't seem to meet the bar of global notability to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But ITN doesn't have a global notability bar. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. Old man retires. Maybe we should add a "Recent retirements" next to the "Recent deaths" line. BD2412  T 21:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We have occasionally done retirements and a sportsperson of Brady's stature is one of those rare cases. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose respectfully. We do not do retirements. Nor should we. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is demonstratably not correct, that we "do not do retirements". We have, and do. They are rare- and should be- but if retiring after winning seven Super Bowls over a 22 year career(Brady was the last active player drafted in 2000) doesn't merit posting, what does? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I've never only commented here once before :P, but it seems that the discussion is for Brady's retirement would be ITN, not how great he was. He is good enough to be news worthy on this point. Just my 2¢  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose An official decision has not been made yet, at least per this report. Support if/when official and article updated.  Spencer T• C 22:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At this stage. Unless someone can convince me that we would EVER post the retirement of an Australian rules football player. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And why in hell wouldn't we, if they were qualified enough? WaltCip- (talk)  00:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If they get in American football with 13 times the fans should get in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure what you're getting at there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The opposition to the inclusion of sporting news in ITN is rather bizarre; it's definitely in the news, and I don't see why sports are any less newsworthy than other sorts of news. The event would clearly be newsworthy and the article on Brady is good. I'm opposing because Brady hasn't actually announced his retirement, per USA Today <https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/lists/tom-brady-retiring-adam-schefter-report/> and the Associated Press <https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/1/29/22908080/tom-brady-retirement>. The frequent denials of the ESPN reporting seem to be indicative that this is premature. However, I would strongly support this when Brady actually announces his retirement (whether it be this year or next). — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * TROUTS for every supporter per WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions. We wait for official announcements and Brady's people have pushed back on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be a jerk. The sources that initially reported he was retiring was reliable. Even reliable sources can make mistakes. WaltCip- (talk)  00:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , have you ever read Template:Trout? Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. And no, it was not reliable reporting, otherwise it would have been accurate. This ESPN piece that I'm surprised is still up says sources say and sources told ESPN. As discussed in the essay I linked, that's not corroboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SACHINTENDULKAR --LaserLegs (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Sergio Mattarella re-elected President of Italy

 * Oppose this is a ceremonial post Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So is every European monarch Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support News of international relevance, reported on front pages of all newspapers and website.--Holapaco77 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as election results were often posted in ITN. As Yakme pointed out, Mattarella got re-elected, with only Giorgio Napolitano achieving that feat before him, so it's quite an exceptional event. Also, this is of relevance both national and international, as Italy is a major power in Europe, but currently is in a political crisis. Therefore, the President, although in a mainly ceremonial role, has a lot of influence in serving as a mediator of unity in a politically divided country/society. - CDE34RFV (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Thanks for adding context. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per CDE34RFV. Re-election is rare in Italy, with the seven-year term usually being a lifetime achievement award for the most experienced judges and politicians. It is even more unusual as Mattarella was counting himself out until a few hours ago. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not opposing this but it seems less significant to me because the President of Italy is not chosen by popular vote, but from a meeting of parliament and regional officials. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Something similar is true of the U.S. President, because of our jury-rigged political system. (The statement "The POTUS is not chosen by popular vote" is strictly true.) Of course, POTUS is both head of state and head of government. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken, although the US President is chosen by people specifically selected for that purpose and are bound by popular vote to choose a particular candidate; the US President is not chosen by Congress and state governors. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A country electing its head of state is noteworthy enough for this. The President has real power over the Italian armed forces and is not purely ceremonial. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is "exceptional", sounds good to me. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As much RS coverage has remarked, the President of Italy is far more than just ceremonial in practice, particularly with the current state of Italian politics. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose powerless figurehead, elected by representatives from the national assembly not a popular vote. Utterly irrelevant. The Prime Minister of Italy wields actual authority. A country electing its "head of state" is not especailly noteworthy when that title is honorific and I don't understand how that argument keeps surfacing. If WP:ITNC is not a simple !vote count, there is no reason for this to be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. As indicated above, in this case, the president is not purely ceremonial, and the article is extensive. --Tone 07:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Role is largely ceremonial, even if it does have a few vestigial powers. Doesn't reach reach the threshold for ITN/R, and could open the floodgates for two postings per country in other cases too, which would be excessive. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the nomination has not been treated as ITNR, but as a regular nomination that saw sufficient support to post. --Tone 10:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose except it didn't have sufficient support by any reasonable measure, especially to post so quickly and in contradiction to established precedent.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that when it got posted it had 5 Supports to 2 Opposes (more than a 2 to 1 supermajority) after 11 hours 44 minutes, which seems fairly reasonable to me. But I strongly agree that it should be viewed as basically a ceremonial post. Most ceremonial heads of state are nominally heads of the armed forces and have some sort of role to play in a hung parliament, so treating this post as non-ceremonial, as arguably unnecessarily stated by the poster, may possibly risk undermining the hard-won recently established new consensus on ITNR in this area (a consensus with which I now strongly agree, even though I had little to do with it, apart perhaps from unexpectedly and arguably regrettably succeeding with an ITNR nom that should arguably have failed on quality grounds and that perhaps annoyed enough people to help bring about the ITNR change ). Of course being ceremonial need not bar it from being posted if it has enough support, but how ceremonial it is or isn't should arguably be a question solely for supporters and opponents and, at least in future, should arguably not be cited by the posting admin as a reason for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support because I personally think we should usually (subject to quality, etc) have 2 postings for 'important' countries (provisionally defined as population of 50 million or more) that have separate heads of state and government. I am strongly opposed to the notion that we should, for instance, not post changes in the President of India or the Queen of England or the Emperor of Japan simply because some people fear that might also allow two postings for lots of small countries (including my own, Ireland). If we don't post the Italian ceremonial head of state, that risks lots of anti-British editors using that as justification for trying to block the new monarch of England/of the United Kingdom (perhaps especially if the Queen changes her mind and decides to retire rather than die in office), which might result in some undesirable editor and reader retention problems, etc. Similar editor and reader retention problems may arise if we fail to post a change in the President of India, etc... Of course if and when we do end up with too many postings this will tend to be self-fixing as long as these postings are not forced on us by ITNR (as they won't be, given our (fairly) new ITNR criteria). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * New Normal? Does this now open us up to posting Presidents and Prime Ministers of most countries? E.g. India. I am alright with that, but, we should codify it if that is the expectation. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes very little sense to me, and I'm not quite sure why this one was posted, given what we have and haven't posted in the past. We should at least have some sort of convention on this, rather than relying on whoever turns up and happens to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the night... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole reason we setlled on the green shaded cell for List of current heads of state and government was to end the endless back and forth regarding ITN/R. It doesn't stop someone from nominating a powerless figurehead appointed outside the popular vote as was the case here. If you want to try to codify the practice WT:ITN is the place to do it. IMO there may be cases where these kinds of stories are noteworthy but this wasn't one of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * agree with both of you. Anyways, onwards and upwards! Ktin (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In practice any codification is probably going to have to include the British monarch, and the least harmful/'least racist' way to do that seems to be to say 'countries with population over 50 million'. Or does anybody have a less unacceptable criterion (although this is probably the wrong forum for this discussion)? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harold R. Steele

 * Long enough (500+ words of readable prose), with enough footnotes placed in expected spots, and the formatting looks fine. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Diego Verdaguer

 * Oppose – A 98-word stub plus unreferenced discography. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 08:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready Still a stub with 776 characters of readable prose. Discography section still unreferenced. Please expand and add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Clines

 * Support Meets minimum standards for depth of coverage; fully referened.  Spencer T• C 05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georg Christoph Biller

 * I created the article for the 16th person in the position after Bach in 2010. Some refs were missing, dead or unreliable, but Grimes2 did a great job, including adding content. We recently added the article for the 18th successor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A little short but still long enough (>400 words), formatting looks fine and there are enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready, but I had one question: how exactly was he "instrumental in the new building for the boarding school"? (Intro says "buildings"?) Unclear what that means.  Spencer T• C 17:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it, - it's much more the buildings - one source says "a vision". I'll see what I can do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 20:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johan Hultin

 * Support Article looks ready to me, seems to adequately cover what he was notable for.  Spencer T• C 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charanjit Singh

 * Support Article is now 2974 characters, and referencing looks good. Joofjoof (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Cryer

 * Support agree with nominator that the article needs some work though, especially his later work. jonas (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Have added more sources. A comedy genius. But then don't trust me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support purely on good faith in my more clever comedy associate here with the dryer British knowhow. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or did you mean your dire British, etc.? – Sca (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Elps ta keep ya sensa yuma, dunnit." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Bannett

 * , I'm not an engineer, but I am Jewish and attended a synagogue with a Shabbat elevator. We're not allowed to "create a spark" on Shabbat, which is interpreted as a prohibition on using anything electronic, so the elevator is programmed in advance to go one floor at a time, one of our many loopholes we've carved out. Seems he worked on some other loopholes I didn't know about too. Jewish terminology is sensible to me. Any particular questions? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I don't have any specific questions. I was concerned that there may be some religiously/culturally inappropriate materials that need to be dealt with before the link goes on ITN. I am glad that things are "sensible". Thanks, again. --PFHLai (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Seems to meet the criteria. The Shabbat elevator, which Bannet invented, really is a "thing" in the Jewish world, with special importance for hospitals and such.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Ana

 * Oppose on quality (support on notability tho) – Article needs at least some expansion over the two sentences in the lead and impact section at present. Met hist is also incomplete. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due the large death toll, Oppose on quality the article need expansion as per Cyclonebiskit. HurricaneEdgar    05:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as needs expansion. If expanded, then consider this a support- looks more than important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Thin, undersourced. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like others, there is only one sentence about the impact. Would support this if expanded to give a more complete picture of the impact of the storm.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Per Cyclonebiskit. Nyanardsan (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heinz Werner Zimmermann

 * With 2500 characters (385 words) of readable prose, it's a little short, but still long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. There seems to be enough footnotes, though I have to AGF all non-English sources. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: One unsourced sentence with a CN tag.  Spencer T• C 05:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry, my fault, it happened when I split the para to insert the pic. I now copied the following ref (Grove) and added another which is online without subscription. Spencer, what's missing for Biller (27 Jan)?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Had not had a chance to review that one.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced start article. Grimes2 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Corbeil

 * Long enough (400+ words), formatting looks fine, and there are enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd the non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Peter Robbins

 * Support Seems well sourced and it is getting a lot of media attention. Jtnav04 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. An editor has recently added a statement at the end about Robbins not having married or had children. This may need to be sourced or removed before posting to RD, but it seems good to go once that is dealt with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Filmography and Awards lack any references. Stephen 04:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two whole sections are tagged for lacking references. That needs to be fixed before I can support posting this to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Milena Salvini

 * Comment – A bit thin at 220 words of text. – Sca (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Entire decades of her biography are missing from the text. We have about 1 sentence of information from 1962, 1975, 1980, 1999, and 2001.  That's MASSIVELY incomplete for a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Someone needs to expand this with solid references before it is ready for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ozzie

 * Comment – Might that be "the world's oldest living male gorilla in captivity"? – 17:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is likely true. I stuck to how the sources stated it. TJMSmith (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Old gorilla di...I mean, referencing looks good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh sweet Jesus, you had me worried about the other one for a minute there. Anyways, Support; good referencing and nice article. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * or another admin: could we change the link from Ozzie to Ozzie (gorilla)? Right now, it's an WP:EASTEREGG, and when people see Ozzie, they're much more likely to assume Ozzy Osbourne (even though the spelling is different). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But we would never just put Ozzy on its own? Stephen 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, Ozzy Osbourne has a surname to set him apart. This is Ozzie, the mononym. Don't treat him like a freak just because he wasn't human, I advise. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In practice, we've almost never added disambigutors to RD displays, though there's occasional rumblings about doing so for non-primary topics.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erwin Eisch

 * Support I've added some ISBN and OCLC. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wim Jansen

 * Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the table of Club statistics complete? Looks a bit too empty. There should be some figures on each row in the totals column, no? --PFHLai (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Verifying that it is the total is hard to do as there seems to be little in recording appearances in the KNVB Cup. This website shades its cells in red where the data is incomplete, which is every season except his very last one. Even this Dutch website doesn't track KNVB Cup stats on Jansen at all  I don't know if this is a blow against posting the recent death. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:AC0D:AEB:53CB:48D1 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that new numbers have been added to the table. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

 * comment/oppose do we really want Wikipedia to be associated with supporting these violent d*mbasses? 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please name call elsewhere, and keep this civil, thank you. Which of these protests were violent? 331dot (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? https://www.politico.eu/article/protest-against-covid-restriction-police-violent-brussels/ 5.44.170.26 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be describing a single event, not an ongoing event. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, we already have the covid pandemic ongoing since early 2020. So the main link covers all topics, including vaccines and protests. --Tone 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There have been lots of protests across Europe recently. The latest and biggest seems to have been in Brussels for which we do have an article: 2022 Brussels protest.  The other protests are perhaps covered in one of the many other articles in category:Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Our Ongoing link does cover this briefly, along with all the other pandemic details – see COVID-19_pandemic. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Arrillaga

 * Comment Marc Andreessen's father-in-law. Source has been added for death, but the section on his career needs expansion. Joofjoof (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a stub, but "Career" is too sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments - have made a few edits. Please have a look at your convenience. I believe it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Long enough (>600 words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and formatting looks fine, this wikibio is READY for RD to me. Does Joofjoof or Bagumba want another look? The career section has been slightly expanded in recent edits. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The career coverage is better now. Joofjoof (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Heidelberg University shooting

 * Please note that WP:ITN is separate from Portal:Current events. Your nomination is correct for a nomination to ITN but if it's your intention to have an item added to the current events portal, you should go there. For what it's worth, it looks like this event is already listed on Portal:Current events/2022 January 24. WaltCip- (talk)  14:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of the low death toll & because it wasn't motivated by an ideology. However, it's easily notable enough to justify its article & its place on CE. There have been other killings this month which have much higher death tolls & haven't been nominated, let alone posted (although I realise that's because the articles are too short), including Arauca, Dankade, Diyala & Sorong. Jim Michael (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "An 18-year-old biology student" who killed himself. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He killed one of his victims as well. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But evidently not for terroristic reasons. Just another disturbed individual. – Sca (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Sad, but not a significant incident or ideologically motivated. Alex-h (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) James Webb Telescope

 * It's a spacecraft and it has arrived at its destination, I don't see why it shouldn't be posted now, or why it can't be posted when we get images. Too many postings is not our problem, usually. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer posting once it starts collecting data but I don't oppose posting once more at this point, always good to have science stories on ITN. And the telescope is one of the biggest recent science stories. --Tone 09:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This craft doesn't really have a destination as it's designed to keep moving. The complex unfurling and alignment is the real challenge and that's not complete yet.  Better to wait until it's operational when we will presumably have its first image to show.  See Timeline of the James Webb Space Telescope. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect; its destination is the L2 point. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they don't want it to go to that point because it would then be in shadow and its solar panels wouldn't work. And there's literally nothing there. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be a permanent ring eclipse so the solar panels would work a little. Entering the quasi-orbit around L2 would be kind of a destination. Complex distant stuff tug-of-war causing quasi-orbits of nothing is pretty cool, L4 and L5 asteroids even need the Coriolis effect to orbit! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to tell the entire scientific community, NASA, and all RS that say that's where it's going. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Its final destination is an orbit. This happens to be true of every spacecraft not intended to land on/in something or sent on an escape trajectory. Though, since that something will inevitably be orbiting something else, if you wanted to be a real pedant you could say that counts too. For that matter, any trajectory can technically be considered an orbit, some just being hyperbolic orbits that never return to their origin point! --47.155.96.47 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait – For coverage with images. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support add an image from the article. An orbit around the sun near L2 is a destination. Big news that it made it there in working condition. Article is solid. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The SOHO animation which someone has posted (right) shows a different satellite from the 20th century and so seems too confusing to be useful. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, would have to be a James Webb-specific animation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's use the illustration at the top of this section. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would work. There's apparently an animation on the article but it would need to say not to scale. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This has been "in the news", with widespread coverage. I see no issue with posting. As a reminder, the idea of ITN is to help readers quickly access articles relevant to things that are getting covered "in the news". I don't see why it can't also be posted once the telescope sees first light. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Yes technically it has reached its physical destination, but it's not yet in scientific operation, which requires months of calibration and commissioning first. It seems better to WP:IAR and post whenever the first light images are released (which is likely to be less than 5 months). Those will be far more interesting and get a more substantial update to the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the nom itself notes, nothing tangible except 'destination' reached. The launch had already been posted, wait for now. ITN is not an update ticker. Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Silver

 * Comment. This reads like an attack page. Someone knowledgeable needs to check the solidity of the sourcing and the appropriate balance. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is NYS politics... it's messy as hell in Albany. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've looked at the article and I believe it's ready. The article is well sourced and I do think it is balanced given the criminal biography aspect. He did die in prison, after all (well, seems he was transferred to a hospital, but he was still an inmate). I don't have POV concerns, and I am a native of New York who followed Silver's speakership and criminal proceedings somewhat. That said, another lead paragraph that doesn't mention his crimes could help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ayberk Pekcan

 * Comment. On a very quick look, badly needs some copy edits as well as sourcing for the entire filmography. I suspect when the puffery/repetition is removed it will appear very stubby. I would also strongly prefer that it did not link to the Turkish 'pedia without using the interlanguage link formatting which indicates which language the target is in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The Interlanguage link template has been deployed, but the Filmography section has remained unreferenced. There is only one cn tag, but the prose (338 words) has not changed much during the past week. More work is needed, but eligibility is running out soon.--PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Burkinabé coup d'état

 * Support - Major event. But article really needs an update. (PenangLion (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Oppose Seems like a chaotic situation and the article is similar, e.g. "The mutinying mutinying soldiers". And coups in Africa seem commonplace. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the article needs a lot of work. However the news itself is more than noteworthy, and if the coup succeds, it will fall under ITNR. ”Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” The article is not ready, we don’t know the clear outcome of the coup yet, however the situation and a government change should be more than noteworthy. We will have to wait and see what happens, and in the meantime improve the article. BastianMAT (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at 2015 Burkinabé coup d'état. In that case, the coup didn't stick and the president was reinstated a week later.  We're an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service, and will look bad if we post flip-flops.  We should allow plenty of time to let the dust settle. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

France24 (most reliable western msm for Africa) says the prez is being held by the mil https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220124-burkina-faso-president-kabore-held-by-mutinying-soldiers-sources-tell-france-24?ref=tw_i
 * Support on significance, Oppose on quality. At the moment the article contains several sentences that don't make sense (e.g. "Although the government denied the ongoing coup in the country."), Unencyclopedic writing, what appears to be several unsourced statements (e.g. The Military are scheduled to make an announcement) and a couple of sections which are either blank or contain a single sentence. With a bit of expansion and copyediting this would be a good thing to post though. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a live feed and what it actually says currently is "Uncertainty in Burkina Faso over fate of President Kaboré". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - In terms of notability, it's clearly a major geopolitical event. The quality of the article is currently lacking but most major media sources are covering it now (as of 8:00 AM EST), so it should improve rapidly over the next day or two. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as article needs expansion, and also source checking (the Sputnik Mundo source looks like it's depreciated according to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Kaboré held, etc. AP, BBC, France24 – Sca (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Not ready yet on quality. <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> 💙 15:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as Pikamander2 noted, the article has plenty of potential for improvement. I'll see what I might be able to contribute. Ludicrous (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are two orange tags at the moment, which are usually blockers to posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - Kabore deposed, government, parliament and constituion dissolved. An ITNR tag has been added, as there is a ”Change in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” BastianMAT (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, as it made NYT push alert. Haven't investigated quality. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when article is deemed suitable, per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once article is ready to go. Coups are big news. The Kip (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two orange tags to expand, one in background and one in the coup section. Please fix this before we can post. --Tone 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, article seems to be pretty good now, should be ready for a front page.


 * Posting. --Tone 09:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright nice, can you add the nom to my profile? Thinking of adding a display on my profile of all articles I have contributed and nominated to pretty soon. Cheers and have a great day mate! BastianMAT (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Presenting this as a done deal seems quite improper. Look at what happened last time – ITN rushed to post after just one day but then, a week later, the President was reinstated.  The blurb says that the President has been "deposed" but the rebels themselves say that he has been "suspended".  The reality seems to be that he's being held prisoner but now the challenge for the rebels is whether they can convince everyone that they are in charge.  And can they then establish a functioning administration.  A lot will depend on how foreign governments react, especially France.
 * Remember the march on the Capitol, when the result of the US election was being challenged? In such circumstances, it's a power struggle and the rebels don't always win.   We should not rush to declare a winner in such confused and chaotic circumstances.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not about convincing "everyone that they are in charge". The classic goal of every coup seems to have been achieved - the president is no longer in power. So, as an accomplished coup, this has been duly posted. If things change, the blurb could be bumped higher to reflect those changes. Brandmeistertalk  14:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Any reason why Burkina Faso isn't a wikilink in the posted blurb? As someone unfamiliar with the country I would have appreciated one, as I wasn't initially sure whether it was a country, a province or other territory. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a long-standing convention that nation states are not Wikilinked in ITN as part of the MOS:OVERLINK principle - the idea being that most people have heard of most countries. I guess Burkina Faso is probably close to the bottom of the recognizability stakes for most people, but we apply a level playing field for all. (I went there on holiday once, so I do know a bit more about it myself!) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 5G

 * Maybe ongoing? There doesn't seem to be a single event to hang our hat on. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main event was that C band was activated by the networks on 19 Jan but the aviation sector wasn't ready for this and so there's been some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – A non-event, so far. – Sca (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * support Beside importance, we arguably have a duty to show people why this is being done so that they don't instead jump onto conspiracy theories about 5g spreading covid or whatever 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * we arguably have a duty to show people why this is being done so that they don't instead jump onto conspiracy theories about 5g spreading covid or whatever Wikipedia has no such duty. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality whilst the section on Aviation and this event may be well sourced, the rest of that 5G is awful, orange-tagged in many places. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't want to invoke the "local news" angle, which as we know is not accepted as valid, but even so I'm not sure this is really a major enough story to warrant posting on a global encyclopedia. I know the US is a global superpower and the biggest market for en-wiki, but even so, would we post similar stories relating to the rollout of 5G in other countries such as Brazil, India and Japan? Also, as noted, quality is a long-way off at present. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue affects international air travel – notice the Times of India story from the other side of the world, explaining how this was affecting Air India. And it's easy to find more international coverage like this, e.g. Airlines across the world, including the long-haul carrier Emirates, are rushing to cancel or change flights....  The story is more global than the small earthquakes and bus plunges which we routinely post. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as things stand. Notable, but not notable enough on a global or even national scale. Unless this eventually causes real issues for the average person then I don't think this is ITN level. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this is only for service using certain frequencies, specifically those in the C band. The blurb as-is is technically correct but prone to misleading the reader. 5G service using other frequencies has already been in use in the U.S. (*looks at phone with "5G" icon in status bar*) Unless it starts causing major disruptions this is kind of "inside baseball" regulatory stuff. Now, a number of these articles would be great for DYK if improved, and they could definitely use improvement. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, I fail to see the significance at this point of the story. Canadianerk (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Why is this a problem only in the United States? Are they using different frequencies to everyone else? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly? It's up to government regulators what frequencies get approved for use in different applications. In fact, cell phones in different markets often have different chips because of different cell standards in use. Notably, North America has deployment of CDMA networks that aren't really used elsewhere. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Status quo isn't really news. Juxlos (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of al-Hasakah (2022)

 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Almost all the cites in the article are to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. As far as I've seen, this event has been absent from main RS news sights. More sources would be necessary before posting. – Sca (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It includes refs from several other sources, including The Daily Telegraph & The Washington Post. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that our article on Middle East Eye states, "the governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias." – ?? — Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing Would make sense to post this as an item first since it is based around a singular event.  Spencer T• C 00:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - added blurb suggestion per Spencer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - agreed statement per User:Spencer (PenangLion (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Oppose - For something as contentious as a war and alleged human rights abuses, a wide range of sources would be required, but there is a strong dominance to SOHR. The WP article on SOHR says is a one-man-band and supposedly biased. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for the sourcing issues raised by Bumbubookworm. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edgar S. Cahn

 * Comment Some items are mentioned in the lede but not the body, such as Timebanking and his academic positions other than Antioch. Joofjoof (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lead mentions that he created TimeBanking and was "CEO of TimeBanks USA" but the body has no additional information about that. Another 2-4 sentences would be helpful (what does TimeBanks USA do?), and once resolved, would be willing to support.  Spencer T• C 05:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support.  Spencer T• C 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beegie Adair

 * Support Article text is short (2821 characters), but both text and discography are fully sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: R. Nagaswamy

 * Long enough (500+ words), formatting looks fine, and there are enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. One minor thing to sort out: as he was the first director of the Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department, how come there is a predecessor listed in the infobox? Who was first? --PFHLai (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This one was gnawing me as well, but I had held off on updating it. I have requested one other editor user:Pachu Kannan to help untie this one. But, in the meantime, I have removed the 'first' reference. It does seem like TNR was the director from 1964 to 1966. With that this one is good to go. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this, Ktin. I am not sure, but it seems to me that TNR was indeed the predecessor except that he had a different title. The table at the bottom of this webpage indicated that RN took over from TNR as "Special Officer" in charge of the operations in 1966, and his title was changed to 'Director' near the end of that year. So I am under the impression that "first Director" or "inaugural Director" would indeed be appropriate for RN, but not "founding Director". More sourcing would be helpful here. IMO, this is a small thing and should not stall this RD nom. There is no doubt that he led the operations for many years. However, the articles on Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department and T. N. Ramachandran may need some tweaking to keep things consistent in the wiki. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. You were right. Added a footnote for TNR (who was really a special officer). Source is here.


 * Posted. Already posted on MainPage ~10 hours ago. --PFHLai (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Thierry Mugler

 * You’re missing a source, I took the liberty to add one. Trillfendi (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant death, article is well cited. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple citation needed tags, and multiple other sentences also need sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now down to 2 {cn} tags, but the prose looks too much like WP:PROSELINE. --PFHLai (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Mézières

 * Support. Tagged as "Good Article", so whatever needs to be done should be minimal. Fram (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four Cn's outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed three of the four CN-tagged bits, and sourced one. Should be good to go now! Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support GA and no outstanding citation needed tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Armenian President Armen Sarkissian

 * Noting that in Armenia the PM is more powerful than the president(and the president cited that as a reason for his resignation). 331dot (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the resignation of a prime minister is hardly blurb-worthy, much less so when it's a head of state without executive powers. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Alsoriano. Parochial politix. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Along with the aforementioned concerns of notability, the article itself doesn't provide more context than "He resigned on 23 January 2022." Ludicrous (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. It would also be desirable to name his successor if possible. That said, this is probably WP:ITNR so once article quality is up to scratch it should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "*Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." What am I missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * List of current heads of state and government says it's the PM that administers the executive. Our own article on President of Armenia calls him a figurehead, in so many words. —Cryptic 03:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment so in other words, you mean he’s just head of state rather than head of government? Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom could also be seen as a “figurehead,” but would we not post that just as we’d post the succession of their PM? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:35E6:356B:5DCE:E4E8 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be posted, but it probably wouldn't be covered under ITNR.--2600:1700:4579:B80:A946:24EB:504C:7E5A (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth is also the head of state of more than one country. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. She is one of the most recognisable and widely-covered individuals of the past century and would certainly warrant a blurb were she to die or leave office, despite not being ITN/R or having any real power. In fact, we even blurbed her husband's death.
 * Comment I added the altblurb, but don't support or oppose it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note that Simonyan is technically only acting President. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a head of the government, just a ceremonial position. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Stale. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Baillieu Myer

 * Support Fully referenced, comprehensive new article. JennyOz (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 16:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Natale

 * Support Referenced, okay depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Colm Keane

 * Comment. Could do with a little pruning of promotion and improvement of the lead. I note a previous version was deleted as promotional and bits of this made me wonder if it had been written by someone connected with the subject, especially the primary sourcing for the degrees. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reads mostly like a resume in prose format with not much depth IMO. Any additional details that can be added in for depth?  Spencer T• C 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Saada prison airstrike

 * Oppose. Still a stub, needs improvement. Yxuibs (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly a significant war crime with between 70-200 people reported dead and has mainstream media coverage. GWA88 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but it's still a stub. Also, the governor of Saada said that the hospitals were collapsed by corpses and injured? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is not in its best shape. Seems a bit one-sided. Reports indicate at least 70 dead, but anything higher is not sufficiently established. PenangLion (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So why Support? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of its notability? PenangLion (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Both notability and article quality are important for posting to ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality probably is important enough for ITN, but the article is barely more than a stub. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on Principle, Oppose on Quality  clearly notable enough for ITN, but the article is just as clearly not ready yet. While the article is improving, nothing in the body of the article talks about what happened during the airstrike. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article quality now meets minimum requirements for the front page.NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support because this is easily important enough & the article just about good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure what qualifies this for a blurb when the significantly more notable Houthi attack in UAE (with a relatively more in-depth article) directly preceding this was not. This blurb should in the least mention that and be expanded for broader consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has a death toll which is many times higher. Why do you think the 2022 Abu Dhabi attack is more notable? Jim Michael (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabian attacks in Yemen during the ongoing war are not exactly uncommon. But Houthis striking beyond Yemen is, and what received broad coverage in the news including the lead to this retaliatory attack. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You could suggest an alternative blurb which includes a mention of the Abu Dhabi attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article hasn't been updated with any sources since the breaking news of 21-22 Jan, as there have been more concrete details released then Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clark Gillies

 * Support It is. Let's go Islanders. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stats, awards and infobox factoids all need references. Stephen 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added citations in-body for the infobox and awards. The stats table have a citation on their own now. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD/Blurb (Blurb posted) RD: Thích Nhất Hạnh

 * This made the NYT push notifications despite being a non-American figure, so definitely a good candidate. Let's get it in shape (if not already there) quickly so it can be posted timely. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. A major international figure in a world religion. BD2412  T 04:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of Vietnamese Thiền Buddhist monk and peace activist Thích Nhất Hạnh dies at age 95. No "old man dies" objections, please, he was relevant up to a very late age. BD2412  T 05:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added blurb into the nomination box per 's comment above. Ktin (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Certainly a major figure in both religion and peace activism at least on par with Archbishop Tutu. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On par how? Tutu was an Anglican, and credited with helping end apartheid. Speaking in vain against the war and for vegetarianism puts Hạnh closer to Jane Fonda, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * His impact is more on spreading his teachings to people's personal practices regarding meditation/psychological teachings, and certainly not vegetarianism. Buddhist monks in East Asian Mahayana countries and Vietnam are required to be vegetarian and there are also a large proportion of Theravada monks who are strongly advocate for vegetarianism even though Theravada doesn't require it. He isn't known mainly for raging against the machine in vain. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. So, in global sports entertainment terms, more of a Diamond Dallas Page. Not identical paths, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Major figure of international significance. Cedar777 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Major figure whose works have been widely translated and disseminated across the globe, especially in English-speaking countries. I strongly agree that he was relevant and remains to be relevant all the way up to and beyond the date of his death—he still has another book that has yet to be (now posthumously) published! --LumensPerSquareMeter (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Such an enlightening user name! – Sca (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC) ;-)


 * No Blurb Every old man who dies is relevant to something. This one Buddhism. Still absolutely nothing to the blurb that isn't covered by his bio's opening line (unsourced chunks aside). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t be a good death blurb without IH’s “old man dies.” The Kip (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I never say that for good death blurbs. A good death blurb has an actual cause, like a helicopter crash, church stabbing or Afghan earthquake. Merely echoing awareness as tribute to big names beloved in Western progressive circles is the bad kind of cause-based voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IH, This sounds a lot like ‘unless someone was worthy of being portrayed in an action adventure film, their death (and their life) was inconsequential.’ Surely the blurb criteria is not this narrow. Cedar777 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you inferred that, but no. If Clint Eastwood or Sylvester Stallone dies tomorrow with nothing to blurb but job description and age, it'd be the same. Stories need hooks. RD is for simple recent deaths in the news. It has nothing to do with life beforehand. That part just determines article creation and content here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Article does not really support a blurb with a lack of dedicated section to legacy/importance/influence, etc. We shouldn't ask the reader to hunt and peck for why a person was given a blurb over an RD. --M asem (t) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should add this is something that is fixable in a reasonable span, just that it should be done. --M asem (t) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstaining the vote as I'm undecided whether this figure deserves a blurb or not. Admittedly enough, I've never heard of him personally, but the article seems to hint at notability. (PenangLion (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Support blurb Internationally recognized activist, author, and teacher of a major world religion for decades. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – 'Transformative'? Just askin'. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Significant figure; (probably) just missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize over a technicality and not because he wasn’t deserving.  Schwede 66  20:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD. He's been called one of Buddhism's best known second only to the Dalai Lama. Thankfully that hyperbole has been removed from the lead. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb agree that his supranational impact, however lowkey, fulfills the criteria.  SN54129  23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Warning If this passes, it becomes precedent. Anybody for whom "one of the second-best in field" is hyperbolic, anyone who maybe deserved that award they never won and everyone with a Lowkey Supranational Impact rating of However is eligible to join the deluge. You want that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This goes to the point I was in trying to make, in that the article does not give a clear reason - that is not buried in prose - of his importance and significance. The ideas for why we should blurb him are in the article but there should absolutely be a standalone section on Legacy or the like so that questions like the one IH is asking are clearly answered. I think this is reasonable for this person, and I don't think it is an issue that he was "second-best", just that it should be crystal clear why we are giving him a blurb. --M asem (t) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Second-best wouldn't be so bad. But one of the second-best, and even a fan calls it a stretch? That's the sort of C-level mediocrity I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dalai Lama is also the de-facto head of the exiled Tibetan govt. It is not simply the case of a religious personality, it would be an administrative change which while not exactly ITNR (non-member state) the impact is self-evident and need not be stated. Gotitbro (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider it nobly silenced, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Buddhism, according to WP has more than 500m followers and the subject is a type of cross-over religious leader so his meditation teachings were also adopted by people who still identify as other, eg Abrahamic religions. Where is the evidence that the subject is a third-level religious figure? Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it, bunch of new age posers. I never claimed to have evidence. Just a message from above strongly suggesting putting him amongst the second-best known is an overstatement ("hyperbole"), rather than a statement or understatement ("bole"/"hypobole"?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also there's at least four CNs as I look at it now, meaning its not ready for the bare RD starting point. --M asem (t) 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have resolved half of them by removing the uncited statements, the first being a quote attributed to the subject's organization (not the subject himself), which I was unable to find in a reliable source, and the second being two highly problematic paragraphs purporting to identify notable followers, for which it is not clear that the people named are necessarily notable or followers; those paragraphs I moved to the talk page for discussion. BD2412  T 02:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Work on article appears ongoing to clarify (international, half-century+ of) significance for reader. As someone familiar with the subject, I’m already persuaded. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - article has an orange banner for ref quality, not ready for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Short of the level of death coverage typical of our RD blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the two main figures of the 20-21st century in bringing Buddhism to western countries, prolific scholar of Buddhism whether one agrees with his reinterpretations or not, notable activist. And whether one likes it or not, major religious figures and scientists have more impact on society at large than old movie stars and sportspeople Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb article looks more than good enough to be posted on RD (not orange-tagged anymore). However, don't see why his death is important enough for the high standard we have to give someone a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly Hanh was a major figure in Buddhism and to an extent the international peace movement but his preeminence therein has not been established here nor in the article. There has been push by specific users to get the death of certain personalities onto a blurb regardless of notability/relevance justification (White, Madden (nom) etc. come to mind recently). This should not be setting a precedent for votes=blurb=consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am expanding the impact section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb  Not sure what Wikipedia‘s obsession is with putting foreign politicians or leaders that no English speaking people have ever heard of in the blurb but not putting notable English speaking people on recent deaths. Put these foreign leaders on the foreign Wikipedia.TomChaplinPoodle (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Come on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the National Front advert :D   SN54129  18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was really in bad taste! You should really consider retracting the statement. I also see that this is your first comment / post at WP:ITNC so firstly, welcome to this project. Please engage with topics here in a constructive and open-minded manner. I wish you well. Ktin (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Prolific author and teacher, Hanh was not only vital in spreading Buddhist ideology and philosophy to the West; much of the work of his life centered around pacifism and advocating for peaceful diplomacy around the globe. He is certainly notable enough for a blurb. Ludicrous (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Posted but blurb discussion ongoing. --M asem (t) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not seeing the exceptional level of coverage necessary; RD is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Top of his field and I am seeing global coverage. Article in good shape too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. A Google News search did not come up with an awful lot in English and the subject's death isn't getting much ongoing coverage in the UK, as far as I can see; cf Tutu where his funeral & burial arrangements were covered in detail for much of the week after his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see full pieces in the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, ABC America, CNN, ABC Australia, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 News Australia (a tabloid!), some in India, France24 about his life and times. Also with regards to funeral rites, note that as the article explains, the Vietnamese government does not exactly get along that well with him, and violently raided one of his monasteries a few years ago. So there is not going to be any official fanfare apart from for devotees. Secondly, as the nomination is not made on the grounds of the manner of his demise, but his life impact, having play by play reporting of his funeral is not a relevant consideration Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually now found a few more; I think all the accents were confusing the search. As to funeral coverage, that has been a metric we have frequently used at ITN in the past. In terms of impact of work, I'd suggest that of all the people on this page, David Cox had the greatest real-world impact, but no-one has suggested his article for a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that scientists don't get enough recognition and have tried to improve articles on them in the past where I have had time, to no avail in terms of getting a blurb. In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021 and In_the_news/Candidates/December_2021, with a lot of opposes from sports-oriented editors. Also sadly in the latter case, there were objections claiming that US scientists were favoured without evidence about their technical merits. While sports/entertainment fans have strongly parochial attitudes in many cases, from my experience this isn't the case for people who actually have studied science, so it was sad to see scientists affected by parochial sports wars Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I suggested that David Cox be considered for a blurb. I happened to check the Polish Wikipedia during this period and noticed that their ITN posted his picture.  They now have Meat Loaf's picture and so seem to be doing better than the English ITN as our current news picture is now 9 days old.  Adding RD pics would give us more choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've always liked the RD image notion but I know there's a lot of opposition to it from regulars here. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The current vote is 12 for blurb and 5 against blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN does not work on vote count, but on consensus. --M asem (t) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am expanding the impact section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus implies discussion and compromise. It's not possible to compromise on a binary outcome. We always count votes, but the margin required is whatever the admin decides in the moment.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb certainly worthy of consideration, but does not seem to meet our normal threshold for blurbs.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb [full disclosure - I am a 30 year+ student of Thich Nhat Hahn and I was ordained by him to be a Dharma Teacher in his tradition] In the Buddhist world Thich Nhat Hanh is of tremendous historical importance. Notwithstanding my personal bias as one of his students, I can guarantee that you can ask *any* scholar of Buddhism and you will get the same assessment. He is a major figure in Chan Buddhism - there is no doubt about that. And he has had a tremendous influence on a large number of westerners, including seminal figures in the mindfulness movement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support blurb Europo/atlanto-centrism is showing up on Wikipedia once again 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I’m not sure if I am allowed to vote as I am the nominator, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American Supreme Court judge who had relatively little impact beyond the borders of the United States, got a blurb. Thích Nhất Hạnh had a global impact that lasted for many more decades than Ginsburg’s position at the United States Supreme Court and his global impact is arguably far greater and internationally notable than hers. Thriley (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb Consensus in favor of posting as blurb.  Spencer T• C 06:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Do I, as the nominator, give myself and those that improved the article credit, or does someone else do that? I am fairly new to this so I am a bit unsure. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Thriley (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried, but the bot just gave you recognition. The sound of one hand clapping? In any case, I don't blame you for overcoming my "bad vibes", cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Elza Soares

 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Most of the bullet-points in Discography are unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Louie Anderson

 * The WP:PROSELINE in the Career section is atrocious. And the filmography is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have fixed the proseline in the Career section, this should be good to go. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Filmography remains unreferenced. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC) And there are currently about 10 {cn} or {cspan} tags in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Meat Loaf

 * Comment Also an actor, dead at 74, no blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would post anything for WP, but I wont post that with some unsourced sections and CN tags. But once they're fixed, then yes, post.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN can wait For crying out loud, you know this needs sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - at least 11 un-cited statements still requiring citations. (PenangLion (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Two out of three* ain't bad but the referencing could do with work first —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) * notability and newsworthiness, idk
 * Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd do anything for a blurb... Howard the Duck (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you nominate All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship for ITN/R? WaltCip- (talk)  13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...But I won't do that. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't he's in blurbable territory. A household name and popular, and the usually raft of awards, but didn't really affect or change the music industry (the standard I use being someone like Prince or David Bowie for that). --M asem (t) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno; Bat out of Hell is one of the 10 best-selling albums of all-time. I think it's arguable either way, tbh. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop right there, I gotta know right now, before we go any further...did you fix the maintenance tags? There are 9 tags remaining. Can we either cite those things or pull the statements if they are not necessary? Jehochman Talk 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Only 11 tags now lol. Probably not Mandelarly "blub-worthy". Editing is so enjoyable with ITN illuminating the main page! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No loafing around on this one, you meatheads! – Sca (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stay cool baby, down to 2 cn's! (Support RD). — xaosflux  Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with 2 cn tags (after I moved the content with the others to the talk page). Jehochman Talk 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be Captain Buzzkill, but there's still tons of unsourced statements. The last three claims in the "The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1974/75)" paragraph, at least four or five I can see in the next section ("Bat Out of Hell (1977)"), and so on.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Not only multiple cn tags but also an unreferenced filmography.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once cn tags are fixed up. Once that happens, it's off to RD! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently 38 citation needed tags, plus some unsourced section tags I placed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooo, disheartening. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready—others took the words right out of my mouth. He was a hot patootie, and I think that clearing up two out three tags ain't bad. Once the article is ready, let's send him off to paradise (by the dashboard light). I'd lie for you, and that's the truth, and while we'd do anything for the Main Page, we won't do that.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I thought he was a sweet potato. – Sca (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment 38 cn tags (and one could add another half a dozen easily, the Stoney and Meat Loaf (1971) section is 90% unsourced) plus two more completely unsourced sections. Long way to go here. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way, way, way, too many American -entric stories ITN. Just because English Wikipedia is English, it should still have an international focus. I propose it is listed under "recent deaths" instead. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is listed as "RD: Meat Loaf". Howard the Duck (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you an answer in the morning. (Whaddya mean you gotta know right now?) Still plenty of tags. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If being the artist that produced the fourth biggest selling album of all time, i.e. Bat Out of Hell, isn't enough to go into ITN, then who is??? Seth Whales   talk  12:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) (non American BTW)
 * , the article currently has 43 citation needed tags. That will keep any biography off of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Echoing the previous comment - he was one of the biggest selling artists in music. This doesn't even warrant a debate, he should obviously be listed in the Recent Deaths - without question. It's an embarrassment for this community that this simple update has not been implemented yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.121.148 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a "simple update" with the number of unsourced statements in the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support RD  – With 148 footnotes, it can't be all that bad. Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen until the citation needed tags are dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Trim it and move it. Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be absolutely inappropriate for what would need to be trimmed - that's sweeping the mess under the rug, and thus not reflect a quality article. I could see if we did that for one or two unsourced statement, but not the chunk in the article presently. --M asem (t) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially given that most of a whole decade currently needs cites. More importantly, I'd also point out that there are quite a lot of primary sources in the article, plus five references to IMDB and five references to YouTube as well, not to mention blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That being so, oppose as substandard. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we, as a group, are so incompetent that we couldn't figure out how to post this. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When Norman Hunter was taken critically ill in 2020, his article looked like this, just 5 sources. Less than two days later it had 43 sources. If I and a few others can do this to a relatively obscure (in global terms) article in 36-odd hours (and see also Trevor Cherry which took even less time), it is somewhat surprising that no-one has stepped up to fix 38 sources on a supposedly high-profile one. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At one point there were 11 and I zapped 8. Then somebody tagged 60+ more.  It's a revolving door. The article has 150+ citations, but that's not enough. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Pretty stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is quite a surprise. Failed nominations often look quite close to being posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting the close; RDs have seven days to be posted. Closing the discussion just means there is even less chance the work will be done. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's defective! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This community is pathetic. Just add the link and get this interminable debate over with. I'm not even a fan but he's obviously a notable enough figure to warrant inclusion in the RD summary.24.80.7.130 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "pathetic"? Complaints like that should go to Talk:Meat Loaf. Please fix the citation problems on that article before coming to ITNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 30+ {cn} tags remain unresolved. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It was long ago and it was far away and it was so much better than it is today Thriley (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emil Mangelsdorff

 * A bit short but long enough (309 words) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Goalby

 * Support Slim but meets minimum standards, referenced.  Spencer T• C 05:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Attention) 2022 Bogoso explosion

 * Comment BBC says 500 buildings affected, some destroyed. Al Jazeera, citing same guy, says all 500 destroyed. They can't both be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Seji Saji Amedonu, deputy director general of the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO), said 500 buildings had been destroyed. A regional emergency official told local media he had seen 10 dead bodies." - Al Jazeera. (PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)) PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "He said about 500 houses were affected - some of which were completely destroyed - in Appiatse between Bogoso and the village of Bawdie." - BBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Conflicting reports (screams). I guess we need to wait until clearer news reports are made. PenangLion (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait let's get some clarity here. Also, the article is little more than an oversized stub right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The death toll seems to be confirmed at 13, having been revised down from 17, according to the BBC, Rueters and Washington Post. The number of injuries is less clear, BBC say 45 "in hospital", Al Jazeera and CNN: 59 injured, Reuters: 180 injured, Washington Post: 177 injured. Only Al Jazeera are giving a number of buildings destroyed (500), BBC say "many houses flattened" and at least 380 people "without shelter". The BBC and Washington Post articles were updated most recently, then CNN. Al Jazeera is the oldest. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The death toll seems to have stabilised at 13, the more recent sources state 500 buildings damaged so I have amended the article and blurb. There's a couple of good photographs which seem to have come from a drone flown by a local Open Street Map enthusiast - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good enough & it's important enough because hundreds of houses were destroyed. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd have been posted within hours. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobs Worth

 * Comment Birthday and death age do not agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All thoroughbread horses in the northern hemisphere have birthday on 1 January (and 1 August for southern hemisphere) . So his first birthday would have been 1 January 2006 (when he was 7 months old), and 17th birthday would have been 1 January 2022. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a gap in coverage between 2015 and now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He was retired in 2016 to a stud farm. A fun, peaceful retirement playing with children, so presumably there's nothing to write home about. --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai Thanks, that works. Sourcing looks fine now (pedigree source is paywalled). Joofjoof (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Cox (statistician)

 * Not Ready Bibliography needs sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I took care of the two cn. The bibliography really doesn't need sourcing; that's just busywork which will duplicate the authority control.  The real issue is whether he should get a blurb as being at the top of his field – statistics. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick qn - Does the bibliography not require sourcing? I have been working all my articles under the assumption that bibliography (as with other 'ography-ies) need to be sourced as well. The only distinction (I think) is that bibliographies can be cited based on the books' ISBN numbers. The only thing that doesn't require additional sourcing as explained to me once is plot sections of books (particularly fiction) where the book itself is considered the source. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A general source has now been provided from Nuffield College, Oxford. I'd prefer isbns to be provided because it makes the books easier to locate, but I don't think it needs to hold up main-page exposure. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I think we are on the same-page. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment If Cox was a top-field statistician, shouldn't his lead reflect that? His lead is rather short in my opinion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail but at minimum... The lead needs writing; many readers do not progress any further. The first two bullet points in the Career section need independent sources and the book for bullet point 3 needs page nos. There are numerous apparently unsourced facts eg date of birth, list of students, several of the awards, and most of the bibliography section (including the leading sentences). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any accessible obituaries? I'm happy to help improving this but it's a bit thin at the moment. I don't doubt his significance, but the current article does not make a good case for it. On a technical point, it's not clear whether his death is "in the news" given that all the announcements I've seen have been societies or colleges. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Resolved most, if not all, of comments above: updated lead, cited date of birth, cited doctoral students, cited two bullet points in Career section and page of book for bullet point 3, cited bibliography section (count of books he authored, names of books he authored, books he edited), cited awards. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Attention) 2022 Barbadian general election

 * Support Two consecutive 100% landslides in a liberal democracy is remarkable to say the least. Proposed altblurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality would be nice to have constituency results, definitely want some text about the results/reactions to results. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. A 200-word text stub with tables. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed another altblurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article doesn't meet the quality requirements to be on the Main Page: less than half of the article has prose, incomplete tables, the results section has no prose and there is no "Aftermath" or "Reactions" section. A lot of work to be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as per Joseph2302. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, Per above, the article is not ready Alex-h (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on lack of info for being a stub while the tables were not updated. (PenangLion (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC))
 * The results look finished now, and there is some more text. Joofjoof (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Zara Rutherford

 * Support. A very impressive accomplishment and record in aviation. She is also the first women to complete a circumnavigation in a microflight. Yxuibs (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Source coverage looks good at first glance. That said, ITN has not posted circumnavigation attempts since Steve Fossett in 2005. Joofjoof (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See also the 2014 discussion around Jerrie Mock's RD nomination. Joofjoof (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Impressive record for a young person, it's getting global coverage and article is in good shape. I mean flying around the world and making that into a record is pretty internationally notable and significant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - for significance and coverage but the blurb needs to be appropriately rephrased. (PenangLion (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
 * I wrote an altblurb. Mlb96 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 article looks good enough, and it is in the news. FYI, I removed a blocked sockpuppet from the updaters list, as we shouldn't be giving them ITN credits, as per WP:DENY. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Although is the image definitely free? I can't see anywhere on the Youtube video that it's taken from that says it's released under CC licence (maybe I'm just missing where it is)? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, Joseph2302. Just removed the pic from MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also removed it from Main Page/Commons media protection and nominated it for deletion on Commons.—Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good morning, America! Let's see what was nom'ed and posted while you were asleep. Oh, look: a Brit set an incremental record with an insignificant gender qualifier! Those always get posted quick.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More in the news than some of the US-centric stuff that gets posted here.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bias is not reserved for Americans. We don't rush to post American stories when the Brits are asleep, and the opposite should hold true. There are thousands of stories in the news everyday, but we try to be selective. A younger person did this six months ago but wasn't even nominated, probably because we don't generally post incremental records.    GreatCaesarsGhost   14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death got a blurb in only 23 minutes while Europeans were asleep.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And look how much trouble that caused!   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Sad that this got posted while most of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I thought we were going to do better about that. WaltCip- (talk)  12:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Use the other photo from the article. It has a message that indicates a proper license. Jehochman Talk 12:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Zara Rutherford 2021-01-18.jpeg also has questionable licencing, as the Permission section of the image seems to imply permission is from a conversation with the person herself- but Rutheerford won't be the photographer, and thus isn't the copyright holder. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know that Rutherford didn't use a timer? How do you know that the media person posting the image wasn't the photographer?  I think this is a situation where we should accept the representation that's been made. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't. Which is why Declaration of consent for all enquiries should be followed, especially for an image on the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings! Any chance we can use one of the images of Ms Rutherford and get the current satellite .gif animation replaced. Has been there for ~5 days and is of a very low quality. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The license processing for her current lead image is still pending.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything would be better than the perpetually re-exploding Tonga volcano -- even a pic of her plane. -- Sca (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * btw -- not sure where we should be reporting this -- but, the iOS Wikipedia app has had Ms Rutherford's image for three days now. So, if there is an issue, we should be letting them know asap. Ktin (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know who "them" is either. I see you started Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news, which seems as good a place as any. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you see any concern with using Shark ULL.jpg this image? Seems like this one has permissions etc alright. This is day 10 of the current image (satellite animation) and that can do with a change. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose -- per WaltCip. Should not have been blurbed, but alas. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The arguments here are irrational. Yes, it might have been problematic to post it without 'waiting' but what arguments would have been raised then is nowhere clearly stated. The second line of argument that a women-specific is not notable should ask themselves why such achievements still make news based on that. Even I am on the borderline about this, but better arguments for non-inclusion should be made. Gotitbro (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The story is plainly tabloid fodder. Women have done this before, and younger people have done it. If we are too invoke superlatives to make something sound impressive, those most account for some challenge to the accomplishment. Being a woman isn't a handicap in this field; indeed, she is only slightly older than the male record-holder. And she is not so young that her age is any handicap. This is Guinness Record level garbage, and we're better than this.   GreatCaesarsGhost   04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does pass the WP:NOTAMERICAN hurdle.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When has there ever been any example of an American parallel to this story being posted on ITN? WaltCip- (talk)  20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull This should never have been posted. These kinds of 'adventures' eg sailing/flying/hot air balloons are not mainstream sports where there is more competition and you can say that a person has surpassed the previous technical standard by improving the world record (eg faster, higher, stronger), it is simply some doing something that has already been done at a younger age. Given that these pursuits are dependent on machinery, and to a large extent the main obstacle in these adventures is not making a mistake and having an accident. However, the equipment is much more automated now and with improved telecommunications it is easier to get external assistance/advice if required so less experienced/situationally aware younger people can pull this off. In no way can a teenager sailing or flying around the world at their own pace be compared to the Olympic/professional sailors or fighter pilots who have to read the conditions and change course every second. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support - Definitely for ITN. Not everythinh have to be big profiled, this is exactly the kind of stories ITN needs from time to time.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose per Bumbu. The real impact of this is: none. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose Not really seeing ITN level significance. Would have worked better as a DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull I cannot see this making first page news, let alone headlines. Juxlos (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gloria McMillan

 * Support as satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As TRM would say Satis. Looks good for homepage / RD. Let's get it there before it falls-off in ~6 hours. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks - this one has 1 hour left to fall-off the page. I think this can go to homepage as-is. Ktin (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonya Biddle

 * Support Looks good assuming all of those offline references are used properly. An infobox would help, but is not required. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Agree with Muboshgu that an infobox would help. Also, can someone examine if the electoral record tables are fine? I have not seen that arrangement (of collapse / hide / show) recently. Let's get this one to homepage before it falls-off the page in ~6 hours. Ktin (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hardy Krüger

 * Not Quite Ready A single CN, but it's significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources say, that he was drafted at the age of 16. (ambigious: 1944 or 1945). Text removed. Grimes2 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gaspard Ulliel

 * Support The article could bear some improvement, but I don'think it's so poor that it should be excluded from ITN —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article sufficient, decent details on death. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Very significant gaps in referencing. The entire filmography is unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment –, I have improved the referencing, if you'd mind taking another look. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Top FYI, this was the top read article yesterday. Related articles like Moon Knight are getting lots of traffic too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short but adequate. Referencing is much improved. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article looks a great deal better than when I last checked, but is Rotten Tomatoes really a reliable source? I'd assumed it was on a level with IMDb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , initially I would have assumed the same, but WP:RSP lists it as acceptable, except for reliability of blog articles and critic opinion pages (no consensus) and user reviews (generally unreliable). As far as I can tell, this doesn't fall under either of those categories and should be okay for something like cast members. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Administrator needed) Ukrainian Crisis
Ongoing conflicts around the world.svg
 * Support. This has been escalating for quite a bit, at this point I think it's worthy. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing situation with lots of coverage. And the article has been updated for events in the 24 hours. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support no singular event that stated this but let's of little fires that clearly indicate far higher tensions than we expect.--M asem (t) 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - lots of RS coverage, notable, tensions rising between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for Ongoing. Will likely be in the headlines for a long time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Strong Support Tensions are high, and there is a real possibility of Russia invading Ukraine. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Yep. I think we're there. I've been in the same boat as the nominator. --WaltCip- (talk)  17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Though I will say, in addition to my above !vote, that the article feels unreadable. It's just a day-by-day timeline of events as they have progressed and doesn't really give an overall picture of what has precipitated the crisis and why it is persisting. I'm aware this is due to it being a developing story, but we really need to find a way to separate the meat and potatoes from the ice cream. --WaltCip- (talk)  17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. WP:PROSELINE issues, needs to be rewritten in a more narrative style more appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  Agnostic on all other matters, but we can't post this to the main page in the current state.  Also, there's only been 3 small sentences of updates in the past week; that's hardly enough to justify ongoing status.  If and when the article is rewritten and expanded with more recent events, it will be appropriate for ongoing.  It isn't there now.  While it is quite likely that there is enough out there in the news so that this is really an ongoing story, the wikipedia article we are recommending people read is NOT reflective of that.  That needs to be fixed before it is posted to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it yourself, mi amigo. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly want it to be on the main page. If someone else wants it on the main page, I am willing to assess it for appropriateness, and will give my opinion of it belongs or not.  Since it is not something I myself want, I don't have any impetus to spend time fixing it up.  But if you want it on the main page, then you feel free to fix it yourself, and I will re-assess it.  The difference between you and me in this case is you have a desire to see something happen.  I'm not particularly interested one way or another.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There has been a lot of sabre rattling, diplomatic posturing etc. but nothing concrete has happened, either on the ground or in the negotiations. If Russia invades, or some major diplomatic agreement is reached, then I'm willing to reconsider. For the moment it's just a lot of arguing about what might happen. I also agree with WaltCip and Jayron that the article is a mess of PROSELINE. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Been a near-constant major news item for most of the last two-three weeks as tensions continue to heighten. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A diplomatic incident does not need "things to happen" to be notable. The key thing is its intangible political effects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

{{legend|maroon|Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|red|Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|orange|Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|#FFD300|Skirmishes and clashes, 10–99 deaths in current or past calendar year}}]]
 * Oppose In the long list of ongoing armed conflicts (right), this one is deep down the list at #37, where it is classified as "minor". So, it's not clear why it should get priority over all the others.  And, as the conflict dates back to 2014, it doesn't seem that it's going to finish any time soon.  Perhaps we should just have a permanent link to the list? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Only because it's really overstated that this is something new. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on for over seven years now, and this is merely a flashpoint of it. I feel the current troop build-up would be less reported on if news sources acknowledged the war as they should have in the years prior. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This now sees 100,000 mechanized troops assembled for an unprecedented offensive, mainstream warnings of WW3 (and sober articles saying it’s not that), and has prompted two Biden–Putin summits and a rare meeting of the Russia–NATO Council. —Michael Z. 21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been seeing some pretty heavy editing since this was posted. Those who had article quality concerns might want to take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say it looks better. In fact, it's even worse because now it's just way too lengthy. WaltCip- (talk)  00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support per above. Constant major news item with huge coverage. Very real possibility of escalation (hopefully it would not) Nyanardsan (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Very strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, there has been a major escalation of tensions already and we should not wait until the actual invasion to post this story. Nsk92 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - article has a clean-up banner currently which seems like a valid quality concern, and bunch of refs look questionable. - Indefensible (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Background section needs cleanup/subsections, and recent events could use some additional expansion. Oppose until article quality is improved.  Spencer T• C 04:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is "in the news" for a reason, a major international ongoing diplomatic incident. If it escalates that will only warrant a blurb and further elongation of this on ongoing, escalation should not be a preclusion for this now. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: This has been in the world news for a while with plenty of articles. The significance of the conflict is great, as it could be the largest war in Europe since World War 2. The article certainly needs improvements, but it's bound to happen with a greater visibility on WP:ITN and hopefully more editors joining the effort. --Mindaur (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support - It's not looking good, and the context behind the event is terribly significant. Barring from the article quality it's a must-have. True, it is a continuation of Russo-Ukrainian tensions since 2014, but this escalation is distinct. I genuinely fear a war might happen. (PenangLion (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Note Article is improving, especially with growing and eliminating the proseline issues, but it still needs a little work. Several of the new sections are lacking for want of proper references.  That needs fixing before we can post this.  It's getting better, but it's still not main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose Ongooing – There have been anticipatory stories about the likelihood of a Russian attack for weeks. (Thursday's examples:   .) Let's not jump the gun. It's still a non-event. If there were a Russian attack on Ukraine, it certainly would engender myriad long-term follow-ups that eventually could be moved to Ongoing, which was devised for precisely that sort of news play. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the header, you will see that this is an Ongoing nomination. If and when an actual invasion occurs, that will certainly be worthy of a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that, and was arguing against sticking it in Ongoing now, because as said above it's still a non-event at this point, no matter how much topical wordage is expended daily. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Keep in mind that it's late afternoon in Ukraine. If the Russians were going to attack today they probably would have done so hours ago. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless they go in another way, I suppose. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Under Nacht und Nebel? – The Nebel in this scenario being the fog of war. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is currently about a "crisis" and that's what's ongoing. It is very notable and unprecedented event as it stands, with some significant implications already, regardless whether there will be an invasion. The fact that it can escalate further shouldn't be relevant (the Cuban Missile Crisis could have also escalated further). --Mindaur (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Late-cycle coverage: "Biden issues new warning to Russia over invading Ukraine" (AP), "US accuses Russia of conspiring to take over Ukraine government" (Guardian). – Sca (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It still doesn't seem all that more than threats and warnings over recent months and, perhaps more importantly in this case, are there chances that American website Wikipedia saying there's something big happening in Ukraine could actually be seen as some American aggression ("Look, America says we already invaded, that's war of words, they're lying, making us look bad... let's invade") But really, with how angry Venezuela politicians got over Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised. If/when Russia invade, post that. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support this seeing how this is an increasingly escalating military/diplomatic tension however the article is in a bad state for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew, Brigade Piron and Kingsif. There are 36 tenser ongoing tensions, with key points that aren't vague intangible posturing. If diplomacy fails and war breaks, post that (assuming the WWW is up). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major diplomatic crisis, widely covered and is ongoing. Heythereimaguy (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant front page coverage in most English-language news, top-ish positions in non English language news. Kinda like the Persian Gulf crisis back in early 2020. Juxlos (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose International dick rattling that just happens to involve a country a lot of our editors love to hate. Much less significant than several other border conflicts that have been ignored for decades by Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – As long as the politicos are still talking the boys aren't fighting.     Ergo, wait. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now for now, as the actions are clear saber-rattling. As we saw in Crimea, Russia is not going to telegraph their plans for months ahead of time if they actually plan to invade.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, It is all politics now, no action has occured. Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as an ongoing event/news story.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as this is an ongoing major event and it has the potentiality to evolve in a shooting war. P1221 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post potentialities. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I have not nominated a potentiality. I have nominated an ongoing and rapidly evolving diplomatic/military security crisis that has been on the front page of most reputable newspapers and websites for weeks. This is not a hypothetical. It is very real, and it is ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dispute "most", and suggest that you are in no position to make such a claim. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you google "Ukraine", almost all the results are linked to this crisis... P1221 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you might not understand how Google works. If YOU Google "Ukraine" you will see very different results from those I will see. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Luckily the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't see what you see. WaltCip- (talk)  17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – No substantive change.    – Sca (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Another nothingburger just like the russian "collusion" Nothing has happened and most likely nothing will. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – War of the Words.    – Sca (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Words? Not really: --Mindaur (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing geopolitical struggle. It doesn't need to have actual shooting to have an impact/destabilise/manipulate others' actions Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Post if some sort of military offensive actually begins, but otherwise it's all speculation and politics, which might run for months. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Thanks to some proactive editors, I can make a note that the article had major improvements and now looks much better! --Mindaur (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Tensions rise.     – Sca (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't shake the feeling that we are sleepwalking into something terrible. It feels like August. Just not sure if it's 1938 or 1939. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1938 is done. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a widely reported diplomatic crisis with a lot at stake and mentioning it is probably overdue. – Anne drew  16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Its an imminent threat to the point that UK and US embassies have been partially evacuated. It's already late for the main page. -- M h hossein   talk 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Whatever the outcome, this already has significant consequences for the world security order and thus has is of interest here. Yakikaki (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If Russia invades then this should be posted immediately, but this hasn't actually happened yet (and hopefully it won't). We should only post news after it happens, and not try to do it before. Also, why has a fairly reasonable comment above been hidden away? This appears to have been done solely based on the fact that the poster is Russian. Are Russians not allowed to edit English Wikipedia now? The comment was well within the bounds of this discussion and quite clearly didn't contain any 'disinformation' of any kind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I added the collapse tag (I originally simply removed it, but hey, Wikipedia isn't censored), and I only note the origin of the IP address because the objectively false assertion that the Russian government didn't interfere in the 2016 US election is a common talking point among online Russian propagandists. Feel free to undo this if you feel this objective disinformation adds anything meaningful, let alone constructive, to the conversation.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  03:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the claims of collusion. I had been thinking more about the claims that the FSB had blackmailed Trump over a sex tape. My mistake. I still think 'disinformation' is a bit strong though. Never mind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think ongoing would be ok but have there been ongoing items without blurbs first? 2A02:2F0E:D11A:4E00:556:C25E:EBCE:3E2E (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Wikipedia is already months late for this. Article is reasonably well-written, and in the event that war isn't imminent (it clearly appears that way), it's at least all the news is talking about even compared to COVID-19, which we've had in 'Ongoing' for over two years now.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of 38 !votes, around 63% of editors support this becoming an "Ongoing" event. That is a consensus, but it is up to an admin to bring this to "Ongoing" or not. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not much going on.    – Sca (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker, but Sca is. WaltCip- (talk)  13:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember, : Three bells is an URGENT, five bells is a BULLETIN, and 10 bells is a FLASH, though you and I are unlikely ever to hear the latter in this world. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – Significant developments, mobilization and statements from foreign leaders. Definitely should be posted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not aware that anyone has "mobilized" his armed forces. This isn't 1914, when Czar Nicky ordered mobilization, making WWI inevitable due to interrelated alliances. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is true. Putin is not Hitler, and is not invading countries for purely ideological reasons. He's far more calculating than that. WaltCip- (talk)  19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, all that happened so far is talks, warnings, and threats that something might happen. But it did not happen yet.Fulmard (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close Consensus to post will not develop absent a direct military attack. In such case it would likely be posted as a blurb. This discussion has run its useful course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By my count it's 25 support to 14 wait/oppose (+1 oppose if we want to count that Russian IP address) at this point - while we can continue to argue, I would think consensus is clearly in favour of posting. Canadianerk (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is a good article which likely wouldn't be posted in the case of an invasion (which would have a standalone article). In my view this is already notable enough without speculating what will happen next and has plenty of coverage by RS and attention by world leaders; undoubtedly one of the most important stories of the year. Davey2116 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments - 26 support, 14 wait/oppose. I think in the end the discussion is inconclusive for now, unless major military/diplomatic action occurs. (PenangLion (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC))
 * How is 26-14 inclonclusive? It’s a pretty clear consensus to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A consensus is a general agreement about something. With 35% opposed, we don't obviously don't have general agreement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Threats fly, talk continues.       – Sca (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit unhinged to post these continuous "updates". Are you ok or do you need help? 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:E483:5453:F34A:91D (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Preceding IP user's post is that user's only contribution to Wikipedia. – Sca (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned previously, is a news ticker. Heythereimaguy (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is clearly important enough. Many countries are mobilizing, it may be the prelude to a very serious situation in Europe and it's clear that it has continued international coverage. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: From what I can tell, the last substantial update looks like it's from 22 January, 4 days ago. Already having issues meeting what would need to be "continually updated" to stay on Ongoing, unless there is a different target article.  Spencer T• C 20:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be better as a blurb if and when an invasion happens.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Late-cycle updates – more blather: AP BBC – Sca (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Narayan Debnath

 * Comment: Needs more references.  Spencer T• C 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks. Buried with off-wiki activities and this one will have to pass. RIP. Ktin (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: André Leon Talley

 * Support. Now thoroughly referenced and content has been expanded as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks ready: an in-depth coverage of his career and life and fully sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lusia Harris

 * Support article is a GA, and everything is sourced (apart from one unsourced sentence which I removed). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Joseph2302. The article is in good shape, everything is cited. RD ready. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article contains no information about her death, except an update to the date. I would expect well-referenced text in the body of the article explaining what is known about her death.  Simply updating the date of death is not sufficient.  If anyone thinks to fix this, then consider this opposition obviated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)  Support I added a bit to it as well based on the source material.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced sentence on death added.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks to those who made the GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Close) New Indonesian capital

 * Support on the merits, a sovereign state changing its capital is rare and significant. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment, the capital is still Jakarta, and it will remain for a while. The news at the moment is that the future capital got its name, which is not the "ITN-level" story yet. It will take years before they move it. --Tone 15:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. This plan has been advancing for several years now. Today they announced the name of the new city, but it still has to be built before the capital actually moves. That's currently expected to be 2024, which would be a better point for us to post this story. According to our article, the parliamentary bill was approved in September last year, so the blurb is also not news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until they actually move capital, which sounds like it'll be in years time (as it's not built yet). Before then, it's WP:SPECULATION. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is another example of where the announcement gets far more attention than the actual event. Furthermore, Jakarta is overcrowded and sinking, the capital is not staying there. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree strongly that this event will get more attention than an actual move. Maybe the move will be spread out, such that there is less of pinpoint moment, but that's not the same thing.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the bill for a new capital was approved in September 2021, it's only the name which was announced today, so far as I can see. And I would think this is similar to when Barbados became a republic (which we posted on the day it happened, not the day it was announced). A notable rare event, but today doesn't seem like the right time to post it (either last September or when it becomes the capital would be way more appropriate times). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to CNN, the new city won't be finished until 2045. So no, we're not waiting. If we don't post it now, we're not posting it. Mlb96 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Tone, Modest, Joseph. A non-event at this pt. – Sca (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Joseph2302. We should post this once they actually build it and complete the ceremony of transferring the capital. Until then it's just a declaration of intent really, which on top of everything isn't new. I've been hearing about this intention for like a decade or so . --5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a unique, interesting news story from a non-Anglosphere, non-European, non-Commonwealth country which doesn't involve an election, sports, or large amounts of death and destruction. ITN needs more of these kinds of stories, not fewer. The completion of the city won't be a discrete event with news coverage, and even if it is, it will be decades in the future. So if we're going to post this, it has to be now. Mlb96 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's depressing to realize that it takes an unprecedented move of moving a capital city so that we can have a blurb from a non-Anglosphere, non-European, non-Commonwealth country that doesn't involve election, sports, or large amounts of death and destruction. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is hardly "unprecedented" or "unique". Remarkably, in the last 100 years more than 30 countries have relocated their capitals, amongst them Turkey (Ankara), Australia (Canberra), Brazil (Brasilia), Pakistan (Islamabad), Nigeria (Abuja), Tanzania (Dodoma), Kazakhstan (Astana), Malaysia (Putrajaya) and Myanmar (Naypyidaw). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * God, the Philippines is too insignificant to be listed there, considering it moved the capital from Manila to Quezon City then back to Manila. There were fewer World Cup Finals than countries moving capitals in the past 100 years. I guess that's unprecedented too? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the blurb is inaccurate. We can either blurb the naming of the future capital city, or we can wait until the new city becomes the capital in 2024. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think moving the capital will concluded in 2045 and starting in 2024 maybe, so why not posted two years later? Additionally, it is non-European story, but not significant impact for me. 180.254.169.24 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the ITN guidelines where it says events must be personally significant to us to be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support It's interesting enough, not a disaster or death, and helps reduce systemic bias to post. Lots of the content in the article is background from 2019, so not directly related to this announcement. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for now. The bill has not even been numbered yet, the construction has not been started and the actual capital is still de facto at Jakarta. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt News enough, timelier than Poitier, sexier than disaster. Waiting for constructon to end is tricky. Even London is still developing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Nyanardsan. we shouldn't even have an article on this before any legal product is published. There's currently none now. There could be significant changes behind the scene, or something else happening.
 * For those who support this in order to counter bias, I'm all for countering bias (I've spent hours creating RD articles for Indonesian figures from scratch). But since we apparently have only a single chance of posting a blurb on this topic, wasting it for the de jure approval seems a bit silly.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, as per IP 108, until 2045. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also comment, if this is approved, I suggest to use article Law on State Capitol instead of the "city" article (which doesnt exist yet), primarily because the event was about the law about the new city which was passed in plenary session yesterday, not the new city itself. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if it's far down the line, think it makes more sense to post when the change occurs. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. Giving that the bill was only approved by the parliament and the new capital will not commence its operation until 2024, so why not posted two years later? Additionally, the moving to the new capital only begins in 2024 and lasts until 2045. 114.125.252.202 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Presidents and politicians often make plans and promises which don't actually work out. This particular idea is not new – here's much the same story from over two years ago.  We should wait until this is more concrete. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Microsoft acquires Activision-Blizzard

 * Oppose just like we've oppose many companies mergers/renames in the past. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, strong oppose on quality as there is only a small amount of content in the target article about the merger, and most of that is unsourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The supporting refs are also used in the second para of the section but on phone, this is not easy to move. --M asem (t) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the "legal disputes" section violates WP:CSECTION: Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. And "is expected to do something in 2023" sounds a lot like WP:SPECULATION. Maybe people should try thinking about article quality rather than just mindlessly shouting support..... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm concerned about quality. Rather than ascribing "mindlessness" to voters, which by the way is a near-violation of WP:NPA, why not let the process play out. This news literally just broke this morning. WaltCip- (talk)  15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support If we oppose this, we might as well never post mergers, period, and create an ITN/NR where we automatically blacklist certain items. This completely changes the video gaming and technological landscape not just in the West but internationally.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, as a side note, I don't think Biden being in office as opposed to Trump would favor the companies in this instance. Trump's opposition to certain mergers and acquisitions was based on personal ideological quibbles with folks like Ted Turner and Jeff Bezos rather than any grounded antitrust precedence.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To add this now would make MS the third largest video game related company following Yencent and Sony. And given the VG market is estimated around $200B a year, this is a huge amount of money to achieve this --M asem (t) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a big deal for both business and gaming. A common objection to these postings is that this is just an announcement, but this is when it gets the attention, not when the deal is finalized. Any antitrust issues that derail it likely would also merit posting. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Topic is in the news, target article is updated and well referenced. No real issues.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not well referenced, over half the section on this merger is unsourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WaltCip. "We opposed mergers in the past" is not in itself a valid rationale unless you can point out opposition to a merger of comparable scale. Regards So  Why  14:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We've had many mergers proposed, and none posted. Including Facebook/Meta incorporating WhatsApp, Instagram etc... Which are comparable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Haven't we passed M&A concerning bananas and an Irish company I forgot about? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, but maybe we did. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment To add to this discussion, I do believe the intention of the ITN/R is to post stories that are IN THE NEWS. And this story is certainly in the news worldwide, see the main pages of a variety of media/newspaper organization like: CNN, Le Monde (in French), Vesti (in Russian), O Globo (in Portuguese), et cetera 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it's also not even on the front page of BBC News in the UK, so they don't consider it one of the biggest 20 stories at the moment. Just having articles doesn't make it groundbreaking... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, it's showing as the 8th story on the BBC News home page. Remember they re-order material based on IP geolocation (I'm in the UK). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There's no logic to these. DuPont/Dow was posted (that was around $130bn) but Kraft/Heinz wasn't (despite being >$100bn).  The one that's most relevant, probably, is In_the_news/Candidates/October_2016 which was an $80bn takeover in the same sort of area as this one - that ended as no consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is lack of logic to (not) posting mergers and acquisitions at times. I feel we ought to post them more often, because arbitrarily denying certain acquisitions creates dilemmas such as these. "Business" used to be considered a minority topic at ITN, when we still tracked that sort of thing. WaltCip- (talk)  15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest deal in history of gaming. Now that gaming is the largest entertainment industry, I think it's hard to justify not posting about it.  Mel ma nn   15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The Guardian is reporting this is the "biggest deal in tech history" in terms of cash involved, although it's only about 2% more than the previous record. Certainly a big transaction which further consolidates the industry and sets up Microsoft as as big a games producer as Sony is, complementing their competition on hardware. But I doubt it makes much difference to end users, as games are all made by individual studios that are subsidiaries of the giants anyway, hence the weak support. Article content appears OK, there are now three referenced paragraphs on the deal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think thd metric to consider for m&a is not just size but impact on market. Eg while Facebook acquiring Instagram or Whatsapp may have involved more money, that fundamental shift (at the time) social media or IT industries. There is almost universal agreement this acquisition is a fundamental shift in the vg industry, though, from RSes. --M asem (t) 15:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Facebook's acquisition of Instagram in 2012 was only $1 billion, but it definitely had a major impact in that industry. Microsoft is valuing Activision Blizzard at about 70 Instagrams (remember well when that was a thing).rawmustard (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post ITN articles because of what one company thinks another company is worth. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:NERDBIAS, aka the Carrie Fisher rule. This would not have been the largest deal in any of the last nine calendar years. We don't post a lot of mergers, and it's not hard to see why this relatively small one is gaining momentum here.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * >"This would not have been the largest deal" citation needed, name a larger acquisition in the past year or so 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * also whether you like this nerd stuff or not, it's on the main pages of wall street journal, and really any business daily worldwide. And indeed as I've linked above on the main pages of most mainstream news websites in general. So your point is really mute, especially since I highly doubt Fisher was on the main page of WSJ or Le Monde the day she died 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's your citation. I didn't say I don't like nerd stuff, rather I implied the crowd that spends all day editing WP is nerdier than the public at large. We do not, cannot, and never will post every story that appears on the MP of the WSJ. We must exercise discretion. We have actively declined larger, more impactful mergers in the past. Posting one now because it appeals to our personal interest is clear bias.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Biased though it may be, ITN operates on consensus and participation. I don't think that our failure to post certain stories should be used to deny those other stories that readers would be interested in. Also, if it's discretion from the standpoint of appealing to readership that you are concerned about, we ought to have something to put on the ticker that isn't just deaths and disasters, for a change. I think that's a valid use of discretion. WaltCip- (talk)  17:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with you 100%. But even if you are casting aside bad precedence, we should be cautious about doing so when it serves WP:ILIKEIT. See the United States' disparate handling of the crack & opioid epidemics.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Microsoft announced its intent to acquire Activision Blizzard (my emphasis). No need for breathless Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Both companies' boards have approved the plans. It is now mainly how much worldwide govts will scrutinize the deal. As noted in past merger itncs the time to post is when the news is announced, not at when it completes. --M asem (t) 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fully expect to get overruled here (and wouldn't be that torn up about it), but I just can't support a merger without some concrete policy on what does and what doesn't merit posting. Personally, reasons like "Microsoft is spending a lot of money on this merger" or even more nebulous statements like "this will have a big impact on gaming" (especially with no indicator of why) don't stand as sufficient reasons to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because a) business news is under-represented on ITN. I'd say that extremely large takeovers merit posting on ITN, and at nearly $69 billion this qualifies as "extremely large".  b) The quality of the target article is fine for an article of that size.  I'll do a quick pass in ten minutes and try to fix the one tag that I see. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for being a major business story that is certainly in the news. Kafoxe (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is in the news and a big business deal. It may not be the biggest, but it is big enough. If we only posted the biggest story in each field when the last story's scale was overtaken, ITN would be incredibly dry. No earthquakes if they are lower in magnitude and death toll than previous ones? Etc. Just because bigger business deals have not been posted, doesn't mean there were not good arguments for them to be posted. Has consensus changed. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, means nothing to anyone except gaming fans, who are a minority among gamers, who are a minority among Wikipedia readers. No actual indication of impact on anything at all except the flow of money. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's estimated 3 billion people in the world play video games - about 40% of the world population - so calling this minority or niche is misleading. --M asem  (t) 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But how many billion mostly only really care about the Asian brands? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 40% is a minority, and people who care about the provenance of their games are a tiny, tiny minority. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 40% is a damn large minority when you consider that 44% of the world's population are association football fans, and even fewer are cricket and basketball fans. It's not all far-fetched to compare video games to sports in terms of popularity. WaltCip- (talk)  13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly Support I am not a gamer but I recognize that this is major news, especially since this was headline news in many business publications. This is involving the third largest video game company purchasing the fifth largest, with each one generating billions of dollars in revenue annually. Not to mention that Disney's purchase of 21st Century Fox was slightly larger than this acquisition, and it got featured on ITN. The only real reservation that I have is that it might be more appropriate to post it when the acquisition does go through. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, should probably mention that its the biggest aquisition in Gaming (and Entertainment?) history, by a long shot. jonas (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Er… it is not the biggest entertainment acquisition, by a long shot (see: Disney) - but it is the biggest acquisition of anything by Microsoft, and as the second-biggest technology company in the world (behind Apple), it is that which is significant. Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that Disney-Fox was posted, no reason to hold this back based on those grounds. But we should wait for it to actually go through than jump-in here. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The announcement of a business deal always gets more attention than when the deal is actually completed. When that happens, the argument is typically that the deal is no longer sufficiently in the news.  If the transaction is derailed for some reason, that would likely merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, either way I think this should be posted. I was basing my comment on the WSJ report that has been included herein which says that the deal hasn't been finalized as of yet. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gotitbro At what point of the transaction was Disney-Fox posted? Canadianerk (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, back in July 2018. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this has a sufficient support to post. The article is decently updated. Please check the blurb, I am not sure how to format the sum involved but most likely not the way it is written now. --Tone 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (This makes Support 11, to 5 Opposed, for reference) On Disney-Fox precedent. ITN posted the Disney-Fox deal twice, at announcement and at shareholder approval. Hence, I believe precedent indicates there's no need to wait. As currently written, I have no concern about the arguments re: quality, or impact. Sourcing looks fine, and the potential impacts are already implied and/or stated in Prose within the section of the article. Canadianerk (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm posting now, without the sum, which is probably not the key thing here (the acquisition is). Feel free to add the sum. --Tone 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A large number of Wikipedia readers go to articles about this game company and its games. Some of their games have sold tens of millions of copies.  This is something significant that many readers will want to read about.   D r e a m Focus  12:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull per above. Run of the mill story, not the sort of thing we post on ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or run of the million$. – Sca (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we not pull a story just hours after it goes up? I know the consensus is a narrow one, but it really makes ITN on the Main Page look downright manic when we get into this habit of posting and pulling stories due to vagaries in consensus. WaltCip- (talk)  13:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have the slightest rationale for pulling. The debate was open long enough and consensus was properly judged.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per the two Disney-Fox ITN blurbs; RSes are catching on, I believe that this is sufficient. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. Just an announcement, the deal has not yet closed.  Sandstein   13:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support There is a sufficient update and it's a big story now (as opposed to when the acquisition is formally closed).Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose nothing definitive. Just an announcement. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose The deal is not final as said above, and I don't think this is that notable overall even as a gamer. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – How do video games affect the world in which we live in? – Sca (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ten Oscar nominations and no wins. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support as the largest free market business acquisition of the 2020s (so far), leaving out reorganizations to change a company's location. It would have also been one of the 20 largest mergers/acquisitions of the 2010s, even if you adjust for inflation. In addition, and as others have noted, this is when these deals typically get the most press attention. Definitely postable for ITN's purposes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - surprised this was posted, definitely feels like some bias here but not really complaining to see business news. However, note this is simply intent to buy, not the acquisition itself. Would think posting would be more appropriate when the deal actually closes. - Indefensible (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The announcement always gets more attention than when the deal is actually carried out and completed. Now was the right time to post. If we wait, the argument against will then be that it is not in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that now is the time to post. The key thing here in my view is both boards have approved of this acquisition. I would have suggested a wait if either of the boards were still pending an approval. Ktin (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The deal closing will definitely generate news coverage, I doubt that would be much of an issue for a business deal of this size. Posting an event prior to it occurring and only based on anticipation seems contrary to other entries which receive encyclopedic coverage once they have become historic fact. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We post convictions or acquittals in court cases despite the years of appeals that likely follow. We post the election results once asserted by press sources rather than waiting for the official count which can be a month or so later. --M asem (t) 03:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is probably a decent argument that your 2 examples are notably different than a case like a business deal being announced. We don't post sports events like the Olympics being scheduled in advance I think. - Indefensible (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems the announcement for 2032 was posted, but 2024 and 2028 were not. Still think it seems questionable, I would have no problem with this getting a blurb at deal closure but feels premature. NVIDIA buying Arm Holdings is another landmark deal I would point to which should get a blurb if closure happens. - Indefensible (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support significant business news with wide international coverage. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Significant business news in line with previous ITN acquisition blurbs, and which is currently in the news. Also, I'll note that pulling it would restore the previous ITN blurb to maintain main page balance, which is Sidney Poitier's death nearly two weeks ago, which is very stale. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Gento

 * Oppose A single sentence on his international career? Needs some real expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the international details 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B922:CE73:626B:C28F (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Article seems to be in good shape now with the section expanded and most of it backed up by sources. Considering how big of a legend Gento was in football, getting it out on the page should be suitable now. BastianMAT (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added some cn tags, but generally the wikibio is in good condition. Honours sections should have more sources and I think the Legacy section is not very objective. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Both seem to be better now, article should be in a good shape to get out on the page now. BastianMAT (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now looks good. Marking ready. Nice work! _-_Alsoriano97 (tal) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more cn tags. Can you please take a look? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, I resolved that. BastianMAT (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Now it’s surely ready. Great job Bastian! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. K. Prasad

 * Long enough (800+ words) and with enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yvette Mimieux

 * There are about 10 {cn} tags in the prose and dozens of unreferenced bullet-points under Filmography, Television work and Recordings. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gilbert S. Merritt Jr.

 * Weak oppose Article is mostly a resume in prose format for his legal career: what were major cases he oversaw as a judge? Would be ready with a couple sentences (5-6?) about important cases.  Spencer T• C 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Jackson

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 05:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question/Request: Ref. #1 is used 7 times in this wikibio. Its link to Chicago Tribune is dead. Can it be updated, please? Is it the same as this, please? I don't have a subscription to verify. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) BTW, I should add that I have found no other concerns with this nom. This wikibio is READY for RD. It would be great if the deadlink in Ref. #1 can be updated or replaced before the link goes on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, thanks for bringing that up; the issue has been resolved. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the linked reference there, PCN02WPS. I'm marking this nom as 'ready'. --PFHLai (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jonathan Brown (art historian)

 * Oppose Looks rather light on referencing, particularly in the Curating and Selected Publications sections. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll work on refs. For publications, are Google Books links generally seen as sufficient? Seidenstud (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A valid (linked) ISBN is probably better; the ISBN template links to Google Books and other resources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In the art history world, the guy was an absolute legend. I'm working on fixing the lightness of refs right now. Seidenstud (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The refs have been much improved - marking as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * About half of the Selected publications section is unreferenced. Please add more footnotes or make the list more selected. --PFHLai (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , what exactly is there to be referenced in any "selected publications" section? The books themselves are cited inline, and so meet WP:V. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , about half of the bullet-points in Jonathan Brown (art historian) have no footnotes nor ISBN number. For instance, for the first bullet-point, I can't tell if the book Italy and Spain, 1600-1750: Sources and Documents exists, or check if it was co-authored by Enggrass, or verify 1970 as the year of publication. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with your other point below, but I doubt very much that the above is anything more that personal preference. Can you point me to the policy or MOS which requires this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just pointed out that half of that section is unreferenced, and you want to talk policy? Sigh... --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see In the news, point #3: "Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." If just by eyeballing, half of the section looks unreferenced, you can't really convince me that the quality of sourcing is good enough, can you? Missing one or two bullet-points might be small enough an issue to disregard. We don't need FAs here. Just some decent articles with no glaring issues. The nominated wikibio is almost ready. I have no problems with the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Another minor issue: Awards listed in the infobox are unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. In addition to the points that PFHLai raises, the biographical material is very thin. Also a reliable independent source is needed for the pioneering nature of his exhibitions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have thrown in as many footnotes or ISBN to the Selected publications section as I could find and commented out one unreferenced bullet-point (I can't find the ISBN). I have also removed the word "pioneering" and hopefully that sentence identified by Espresso Addict no longer needs a citation for that. I hope someone can find the refs for the awards in the infobox and write more to address the Espresso Addict's "biographical material is very thin" before this nom's eligibility runs out in less than one hour. --PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karim Ouellet

 * Comment – A bit thin at 280 words. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (357 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Birju Maharaj

 * Wait Current version has him dead at 83 and 84. After that's settled, maybe. It's quite stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Edits done. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone against the source, and with the original birthday math. A road less traveled, but at least it's not internally inconsistent anymore. Weak Support! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please can I request an editor / admin to have a look at this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in good shape. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support too, but is there still a confusion wrt his age at death?  SN54129  16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, -- I do not believe so. We just used his date of birth which was already available and sourced. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support all good, a great addition to the man page.    SN54129  23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Late Reply The birthday alternated between 1938 and 1937 during the last 16 years of his life, no source. After he died and while the author of the current source likely Googled him, the article was on 1937. Citogenesis, I suspect. Randy Savage had the wrong name the same way for a spell. But the source for 83 likely just Googled him when WP said 1938, so it's a draw, weak support still. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Afghanistan earthquake

 * Support – 26 deaths and the extent of destruction is easily notable even if the magnitude is smaller than 6.0 Mw. Haven't had an earthquake ITN since that Oct 5.9 in Pakistan which also resulted in a similar extent of damage and casualties. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Afghanistan has earthquakes like some places have rain. Not saying this death and destruction is insignificant. But by Afghan, earthquake and Afghan earthquake standards, it lacks oomph. It was also two earthquakes. Hard to know if the stronger was deadlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I had the same reasoning when opposing this earthquake some time ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember. Read it a day or so too late to help, felt kinda bad for having "better" things to do, sorry for your loss. Don't delay, act today, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – A bit thin. Doesn't appear to have been very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is slightly short but covers the essentials and is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It treats a pair of earthquakes as a single earthquake, before and after acknowledging the weaker one happened. Is that fundamentally encyclopedic? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced and sufficient. Topic is being covered by news sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I made a mistake while writing this blurb, can an admin update the main page? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ No more Qadis on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Rasheed Naz

 * Oppose – Stub – 190 words of text. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per Sca. Additionally, the non text sections are completely unreferenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with filmography incomplete and unreferenced. Very much under-developed as a wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Fuel truck explosion in Abu Dhabi

 * Oppose not mentioned in article listed. Events that aren't notable enough for their own article won't be notable enough for ITN. And don't currently see lots of news coverage about it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still oppose on quality, as the article is basically a stub. It has 4 sentences on the attack, 4 sentences on actual aftermath, and is then just bloated with reactions. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to absence of article, neutral on significance the most significant thing here is that the UAE hasn't seen any terror attacks in years as it's a relatively peaceful country. Heck, I can't recall any terror attacks at this scale that happened there in the last 15 years. Tube·of·Light 15:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: according to Gulf News, there was a minor fire at Abu Dhabi Intl Airport that could have been caused by this attack. Tube·of·Light 15:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update:Oppose due to article length Article has very little information as it is. Tube·of·Light 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. We generally do not post events that don't have their own article. Unsure if this even justifies an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose without standalone article. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Now has standalone article. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Only if background is added. Looks well-referenced. Notable since first attack of foreign entity on UAE soil. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Apart from 'Reactions,' text is a 150-word stub. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb, but I don't think that it will help much. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 20:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Three deaths is tragic for those affected, but this is a minor footnote in the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present). It's unusual for the Houthis to attack across the border into the UAE, but it seems unlikely to make much difference to the outcome of the war, or anything else really. Also the blurbs make this sound like an accident, while the article makes it clear it was a deliberate attack. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not a turning point in the scope of the war, Alex-h (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant in the war. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard J. Ferris

 * Support Article is sufficiently sourced and covers significant points of the subject's life. Note that he left before the "United Breaks Guitars" era. Joofjoof (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta

 * Support Every paragraph looks sourced now, orange tag gone. Brandmeistertalk  21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Shinji Mizushima

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much unreferenced materials at this point. Please add more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles McGee (Tuskegee Airman)

 * Support The article is rated B-class and looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No major issues. [Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in good shape. AviationFreak💬 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. BD2412  T 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the title of the article is not consistent with how disambiguation should be made. It's POV-ish in that the more concise title is just "(pilot)". --M asem (t) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been moved to current title in 2020 per Talk:Charles_McGee_(Tuskegee_Airman).—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think that "Charles McGee (Tuskegee Airman)" is okay because that is part of the notability. Peaceray (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting salute Well done, history-maker. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Paul Myners

 * Not Quite Ready Article is not in dreadful shape. But there are a handful of cites needed before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Public service and philanthropy section has much unref'd materials. Much of the After government section looks like WP:proseline. This wikibio also have a handful of {cn} tags that should be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Lord

 * Support Article is solid and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Cheff

 * Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Bare but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marlon Bundo

 * Support, article looks good and is fully cited. feminist (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good. Condolences to Wesley. Davey2116 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support But I guess not a Thatcher or Mandela rabbit, so no bunny blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PP Comment It's rather sad when we have a much better article about a pet rabbit than a recently deceased former Prime Minister of Japan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear... I dare not post a 300-word start-class wikibio next to it. --PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * People who read the English Wikipedia would likely be more interested in Mike Pence's pet rabbit (a topic which has remained in the English-speaking public's consciousness) than a former Japanese prime minister who served a little more than two years around the end of the Cold War. For that matter, the jawiki article for Marlon Bundo (ja:マーロン・ブンド) looks nice as well, a sign of Bundo's international impact. feminist (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis
Comment - Let the event be over first. (PenangLion (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Wait but leaning oppose. Unless this turns into something a lot bigger, these kinds of things don't normally rate ITN blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Run of the mill hostage situation. No casualties, except the bad guy. Long term significance is likely nil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, borderline oppose - Adding on to Ad Orientem's point, only four people were taken hostage, and one has already been released IIRC. Given the small number, unless it escalates into a major firefight or Siddiqui does get released because of this, I don't see anything particularly blurb worthy about this. Mount Patagonia (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we have a WP:MINIMUMHOSTAGES policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that, assuming no further escalation occurs, there isn't much about this that makes it important enough to get it reported as a blurb on the frontpage. Mount Patagonia (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A threat like this has put the entire American Jewry on edge. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  03:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this event, while I'm sure traumatic for all involved, ended uneventfully (thankfully). It is unlikely that there will be sustained coverage on its aftermath. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Rockstone and Ad Orientem._-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous opposes. Crisis ended quietly. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - does not rise to the level of significance required. Can this be added to one of the current events pages?  Do we even have “News in the United States”?  Maybe Wikinews? Great work on the article. Thank you for it.  Jehochman Talk 13:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait The new British angle makes me think it might get more newsworthy attention. It is at least intriguing. Kingsif (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the international angle will mean that the media will cover it more widely & for longer. The media & general public will be interested in Malik Faisal Akram's history in the UK & US. How he went from growing up in Blackburn, Lancashire to becoming a hostage-taker 4,600 miles away in Colleyville, Texas. Jim Michael (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it turns out Boris or the Queen were behind this, somebody ping me. Otherwise this was just a routine hostage situation with no wide ranging or long term significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They'll be an investigation in regard to how a non-resident foreigner bought guns in the US. Other aspects of the investigation will be why Akram choose to target a synagogue, what connection he thought a synagogue in Texas had to Aafia Siddiqui & why he thought she should be released. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Surprising as it all is, looks like this is not some new wave of cross-border Islamic antisemitic terrorism, just the synagogue was open and close to the prison. So, standard as far as hostage incidents go, and consensus suggests those are not unusual enough to go in the box. Are they? Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was initially opposed to it being posted, but I'm now undecided. If he was a lone wolf & his only connection to Siddiqui is that he was a supporter of her, it isn't important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noteworthy development this evening. - BREAKING: Two teenagers detained in south Manchester in relation to attack on Texas Synagogue <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Joe B. Hall

 * Oppose Primarily sourcing issues, but might be a bit sparse too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In need of footnotes for the many championships and the statue. The table in the Head coaching record section looks incomplete; please add refs there, too. --PFHLai (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexa McDonough

 * Wait: Promising article but multiple citations are still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done – all "citation needed" tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready per Flibirigit . -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem I am not available to fix the citations. Hcoder3104 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * all "citation needed" tags have now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support everything appears referenced now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, article has no more maintenance tags and now meets citation requirements. Flibirigit (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready Much improved. Well done on referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article in great condition. Good job. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga

 * Ongoing I was posting a nomination too but Jonas got there first. The volcano has been erupting since 20 Dec so this is the latest in a series of events and there may be more to come.  Ongoing may therefore be sensible as with the other recent volcanic eruptions which lasted for weeks. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and/or ongoing. The satellite image is especially interesting content. The target article seems sufficient. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have any information on deaths or financial impact? I agree the article is good, but what it is the significance?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No immediate deaths (the island is unhabited) but there are tsunami warnings out at the present. --M asem (t) 13:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reported mortality, Ongoing seems a logical choice for now. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Somewhat underwhelming video here. - Sca (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says communications are down. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Jehochman Nyanardsan (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Tsunami warning has been issued for the US West Coast. Looks like a powerful enough tsunami for it to be at least a major event, even in the (hopeful) case that casualties are limited or none. Juxlos (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Impact spans to U.S. and Canada. Article sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of ultimate death count. Top news story currently, the entire Pacific Ocean is on red alert. Large amounts of damage is inevitable. Mlb96 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's clearly speculation. Please see below. – Sca (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait!  – AP dispatch of 16:30 relates "no immediate reports of injuries" in Tonga and "no reported damage and only minor flooding" in Hawaii. Also, wave height at Monterey, Calif., put at only 8 inches (20 cm). Prudence dictates reserving judgment until this apparently weak tsunami's effects known. – Sca (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Our own article, under subhead Impact, says: "No information is yet available on the extent of damage and casualties from Tonga due to communication issues." ITN promotion of such a sketchy article would be premature. – Sca (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for posterity, full quotation from the AP article: "There were no immediate reports of injuries or on the extent of the damage because all internet connectivity with Tonga was lost at about 6:40 p.m. local time, said Doug Madory, director of internet analysis for the network intelligence firm Kentik." Prism55 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Volcanoes erupt all the time. If this one is substantially larger (it appears that we are giving in a VEI 5 without citation), or it causes death/destruction it could be posted. But I'm seeing nothing that specifically indicates this is significant.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Though ITN is obsessed with WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, this is already unprecedented, even if (hopefully) the damage is minimal. She said the advisory was “fairly uncommon” because it was due to a volcanic eruption and not an underwater earthquake, and because it extended to the entire West Coast..—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, this (continuing?) geologic/marine event appears to lack general significance or major impact. Ergo, wait. – Sca (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved the article and then saw it was in ITN/C. Will this break anything? Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't really know the ropes around here but I will give a Weak support, as it is definitely making plenty of news right now. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  17:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - making headline news world wide. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So is Novak Djokovic. – Sca (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support even if this ends up being a nothingburger. This is making front page news across the world including CBC News in Canada, NPR in the United States, The Japan Times, BBC in the UK, Al Jazeera in Qatar/Middle East.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait I support on importance - this probably should be ITNR, but isn't. The issue is that I haven't seen a metric for how large the eruption was, or an assessment of the impact on the ground in Tonga.  Most of the article is about the tsunami (and the tsunami was barely an event at all).  Presumably satellite internet in Tonga will be working in the morning and we will get some sense of the situation on the ground.  Also there will presumably be a better sense of the size of the eruption. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν )
 * Support - How much news do we end up posting from Tonga? And should we not concern ourselves with diversity of topics? A butcher's bill need not be an indication of newsworthiness.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support [Ongoing] Compares well in impact and notability to most disasters posted on ITN. Lacking known deaths/damage doesn't help the case for such an event, but also doesn't disqualify it. EDIT: modified support for ongoing due to continued eruptions and impacts. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another reason to wait. – Sca (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It can always be shifted to Ongoing once there's consensus for that. By the time it's cleared for an ongoing tab, it could be approaching stale - if not be completely stale. I don't see the point of sitting on a nomination if it meets criteria now, just in case it goes on longer than anticipated. Canadianerk (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Consensus in favor of posting, with some suggesting to wait. This is a significant geologic event with global news coverage and impact (even if it doesn't reach WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). It could be months before the full-scale of the eruption is seen, as major volcanic events can have an impact on global climate. The magnitude of the eruption (Volcanic Explosivity Index) is undetermined so a recurrence interval is not available as of yet. Pressure fluctuations are being observed halfway across the globe (with seismographs measuring the shockwave in the Cascade Volcanoes), which is not a frequent occurrence as far as I'm aware. A blurb is most appropriate over ongoing given the main event happened within the last day. Ongoing can be discussed down the road when this item rolls off the ticker. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, tsunamis were recorded in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (albeit very minor) from the sheer force of the shockwave and/or pressure fluctuations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Sunday coverage includes: "Tsunami threat over after huge Pacific volcano eruption" (BBC), "Pacific tsunami threat recedes as volcano ash cloud covers Tonga" (Guardian), "Surging waters sank at least one boat in Ventura (Calif.) Harbor" (AP). As of 13:00, no casualties had been reported. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another large eruption detected See here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alice von Hildebrand

 * Long enough (527 words) and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready. It's great that we can have a woman with a great Catholic theological work on Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Seabrook

 * Support Popular gardening advisor, looks fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Lede starts "He wrote a gardening column in The Sun newspaper for over 40 years." but body of the article has no info about this.  Spencer T• C 05:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is now covered. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F9AB:D2E7:65C2:9600 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edward Roberts (Canadian politician)

 * Support Article is solid and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More than long enough (900+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Eleventh lieutenant governor, good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Fahy

 * Support Respectable article. Referencing is solid as is usually the case with Bloom6132's nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looking good for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Stewart

 * Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Aurora Couto

 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Toshiki Kaifu

 * I removed some of unreferenced material and added two cn tags. The text reads solid otherwise. --Tone 09:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready For a change referencing is not the issue. The article is just really subpar for a former prime minister of one of the world's major countries and needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when ready Article is really shorter than it should be. One CN tag, but that can be fixed along with expanding it This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose lacks info (and refs) on many of the subject's political office and honorary titles as shown in the infobox and the succession boxes on the wikipage. Please expand the coverage. --PFHLai (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Junior Siavii

 * There are about 8 {cn} tags in this 529-word wikibio. Please add more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Jacques Beineix

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Citations have been added. Thriley (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations for a few of his awards are missing. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Achternbusch

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Teachout

 * Comment: Good depth of coverage, but Terry_Teachout needs references. Pretty close to being ready.  Spencer T• C 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - Fixed the references and the orange box. Feel free to let me know if you'd want any additional edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Anwar Raslan conviction

 * Oppose on article quality. Article is far too short. Will reconsider upon expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article strikes me as being a little too "preachy", i.e. too eager to push a particular POV. Claims have been over-egged in furtherance of this. The Syrian government was not on trial and the "first" claims are either narrowly defined or seemingly in contradiction to the Al-Gharib case referred to in the references. 3142 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article is an UNDUE and wholly NPOV BLP.2001:708:20:1300:0:0:0:1650 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP issues- he has a right to appeal the verdict, and the article is question is wholly focused on this trial, and so is not NPOV. Also, numbers in article don't match the blurb, ALT1 is POV and not in the article, and the article needs more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaving the other issues aside, we usually post convictions and do not wait for all appeals to be exhausted(which can take years and even decades). If a conviction is overturned, that can be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there are no BLP issues when RS's supply the information. The last sentence here is whistling in the wind: Bill Cosby's overturned conviction was not posted.  I doubt any would be, unless ITN policy on this is locked in place.  96.5.122.4 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are however BLP violations on an article when it's written exclusively about this, with a massive focus on the conviction, and no other content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cosby's should have been posted. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. But unless such conviction status updates are locked in as ITN policy, it will not happen.  96.5.122.4 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ... in principle, pending cleanup or separate article. A significant event and precedent. Very widely covered on Thursday; some follow-ups today.  – Sca (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, This is the first of its kind, opening a new session in the international judiciary.Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adi Andojo Soetjipto

 * Support Article looks solid. Good job on referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Non-English refs AGF'd. --PFHLai (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen H. Sachs

 * Comment: Any info about what he did in his role as Attorney General, which seems to be his most notable political position?  Spencer T• C 06:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate depth, referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Spector

 * Not Ready Referencing is very poor and will require some work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much unsourced content, and this does not really comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with New York Daily News? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it's generally seen as reliable and as this is a report of a court proceeding I can't see the issue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As soon as sourcing issues are resolved, Strong Support. Highly influential and significant singer, and many of the songs by The Ronettes remain widely recognised to this day. TheScrubby (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the only criteria for a biographical article to be posted at RD is article quality. So, "support when issues resolved" is kinda redundant. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Stats FYI, this was the top read article yesterday. The |Betty_White readership was 465K and so not in the same league as Betty White, who is still in the charts after two weeks. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discography still unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ References added to Discography section too. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good job. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – I just got rid of the last of the cn tags, and will continue to watch this article and provide sources as needed. It looks to me to be in pretty good shape right now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: While we wait for a spot to open up on the RD line, can we have a non-primary source for the solo singles, please. And preferably not on the subject header, please. The footnotes shows up in the table of contents and looks rather odd there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, although a quick check at discogs and 45Cat (as usual) reveals they are all genuine. I'm not sure why any of her official discography should really be doubted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was tagged. It's a minor thing that should not hold up this nom, but would be nice if it can be resolved before the link goes on MainPage. (Sorry, I have no clue what 45CAT means, but it's amusing to see it next to DiscOGs.) --PFHLai (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. Consider yourself catted. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see... thanks for the link. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't trust it, as it's not WP:RS (... it's written by record experts). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, well,... I'll leave things the way they are. BTW, thanks for fixing the table of contents. --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Shebby Singh

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (600+ words), but needs more refs (4 {cn} tags). Would be nice if "He won every domestic honour, including the Malaysia Cup, Malaysian FA Cup and League Championship." can be expanded to include some details on what he did to earn all these honours. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Luis Castañeda

 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will need some work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: His bio in Spanish Wikipedia has three times as many refs. Perhaps someone who knows the language can look into porting some of the refs from ES to EN, please? --PFHLai (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clyde Bellecourt

 * Comment I expect we'd need his autobiography to source much of this bio. No Google or Amazon preview exists so I'm bowing out. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Making some progress as more sources are appearing. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Not perfect but C-class biography now. Copy of his autobiography found at Johns Hopkins. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Bellecourt and AIM co-founder Dennis Banks (d. 2017) were very widely known in their day. Our Bellecourt article has been updated. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing needs a lot of work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the NFL and the Washington football team are still not ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Ready, please post. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is now well sourced and comprehensive. KittenKlub (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is someone available to post this, then? Thanks. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whither free image? Are we sure there are no freely-licensed images of him on Flickr, etc.? Joofjoof (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Joofjoof, article is not proposed for a blurb so why are you asking here instead of on the article talk page? Flickr has two eligible images, but both are so poor as to be disfigurements. What is "etc."? Search was made of the Library of Congress photo library which has nothing. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Joofjoof, thank you for the nudge. When I pulled the crop back from his face to full length we got a pretty unmistakable talking (?) stick. Can't say I like the photo but it is free and beggars can't be choosers. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Waldhorn

 * Weak oppose table needs referencing This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done – table all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Well written and sourced now. RIP Councillor David Horton.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Query Who will chair the Dibley parish Church meetings now? Chrisclear (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Is it acceptable to use FreeBMD for his son's name and birth year? WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns and all that. Joofjoof (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done – removed birth year (left name per WP:BLPNAME) and replaced FreeBMD with existing source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is better. Support now. Joofjoof (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 College Football Championship

 * Oppose This is not an ITNR and should not be. The international impact and interest is very low and it doesn't seem to be the most notorious sporting event in the USA if we compare it with the Super Bowl or the NBA, which are ITNR and rightly so. As Masem said two years ago, "college footage is equivalent to minor league/amateur sports, which we should not post unless it is like the Boat Race, the most significant event in that sport". Nor do I think that the economic value of it is decisive, as it's something that interests only college football fans (and that's fine). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There's no limit to how many events can be posted. The NCAA college basketball tournament is on ITN/R even though it is (1) amateur, and (2) considered less than the NBA Finals or FIBA championship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITN/C (above): Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major event, top annual event in college football, would increase us from one (1) American football item in a year to two (2), so not onerous or overbearing in this way. It's in the news, covered by all the top sources, and we have a quality article. A lot of people here just don't like it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because I've justified why I oppose it doesn't mean I simply "don't like it". This counterargument is not valid for me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , that was not addressed specifically at you. The college football national championship game has been nominated every year since 2011, and a lot of the opposition is IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are going to bring up the Supreme Court, let's not forget they found the NCAA was exploiting student athletes too. Just because something is popular doesn't make it appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 22:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Popularity doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate for ITN either. Witness the failed Betty White Rule.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support Given the precedent of posting this and related events in the past, including the INT/R status of the NCAA basketball tournament (per Muboshgu). I personally have questions about notability, but there seems to be enough reason to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. In some ways college football is more popular than NFL football. The largest capacity stadium in the US is a college stadium. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A minor, amateur, limited status school sport of limited notability. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E462:BF8E:70DD:6A60 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Every word of your comment is demonstratably incorrect. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Not only is it a second-level competition, it is still an amateur school sport. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C149:7535:6073:F180 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first hatnote in the college football article states "This article is about gridiron football played at an amateur level in the United States". Is the hatnote incorrect in stating that this is an amateur competition? Chrisclear (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could be subtle trolling? It's only amateur cause the players would be banned for life if they took any money or free stuff for playing. The Supreme Court has now allowed 1 laptop, free tutors just for them and other things that can help their education. Some need tutoring cause colleges care little to nothing about your pre-college academics if you want to play football or basketball with them and your football skill would improve the team. They'll even give like 50 players an (almost) full football scholarship (free tuition+room and board) regardless of how much the player can afford to pay. It is a surviving relic from the time when amateurism in sport was more widely regarded and even the best Olympic champions could be and were banned for life for having the nerve to play after making money from sport. 15:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's 8 college football stadiums that are only exceeded in size by a soccer/track and field/mass games stadium in North Korea and 1 from Indian cricket. All 4 sports have bigger fields than gridiron too which means a 100K+ gridiron stadium has to be taller and thus harder to build for the same distance to the nosebleed section. And there's only ~half a dozen home games a year. The coaches only make a little less than the top league coaches, Georgia's coach makes $7 million a year and $7m isn't even in the top 3rd of his conference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This year's game drew an estimated 22+ million TV viewers. For context, the recent ITNR darts promotion claimed 2M viewers in the UK and Netherlands. Comments that this game is "limited status", much like The Boat Race, will often depend on whether the !voter likes it or not, which is likely dependent on their locale.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race isn't suitable for ITN either. The PDC item was at least a world championship, which this isn't. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this is a good quality article on an event that gets a lot of atttention. With the Super Bowl the only other American football story likely to be posted, I don't think two per year is excessive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the team list is unsourced, the match summary has one or two sources per paragraph which doesn't seem like enough. And the TV broadcast sections in the infobox are not verified anywhere. And the teams season summary is confusing to a regular reader because it's filled with unexplained specific terminology, and has peacock phrases like escaped an upset bid and suffered their first and only setback. All in all, not good enough article for a non-specialist reader to understand. Although I fully exprcr this to get posted during the European night time based mostly on American votes, and ignoring the quality issues.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that. This is an annual timesink that (with the exception of 2020) usually gets closed after about three days of arguing as "no consensus." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will comment that on quality, the article is way overly detailed, particularly on the season for both teams, and the recap (its supposed to be a recap, not play by play; must of that seems ripe for a box score table). Thus will help eliminate some of the slang and peacock terms. --M asem (t) 00:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the recap looks like a live blog sourced to primary source play-by-play link. Should rely on secondary sources for highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major sport, detailed article, big game, fine time, new champs. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose subnational competition. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost like Oxford and Cambridge students rowing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!!! Banedon (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose 2nd tier championship and therefore not sufficiently notable. The wall of text (with its poor grammar and syntax) describing the economic effects of the sport are interesting, but do not make the competition any more notable. They just reiterate that the sport is played in a high-income country with a high population. I am guessing that the use of three non-American sources is possibly an attempt to suggest that this is "news" outside the US. However a mere cursory glance shows that the "UK" article is copied from AP wire, and the "Australian" article was written by an American, for an American audience, and then syndicated across all country-specific versions of Yahoo Sports. The French article link does not work. Chrisclear (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The French link needs the space near the beginning removed and possibly also a www. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All I read is a very long and drawn out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Maybe try to start a real discussion? Thechased (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your simplistic application of the "IDONTLIKEIT" label is both incorrect and unfortunate. As for a "real discussion" - it's in the sentences I wrote. Chrisclear (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a second-tier championship. Division II would be, this is little different from NFL football with larger audiences. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From the college football article: "Therefore, college football is generally considered to be the second tier of American football in the United States and Canadian football in Canada; one step ahead of high school competition, and one step below professional competition." (My emphasis added). The first hatnote in the college football article states "This article is about gridiron football played at an amateur level in the United States". Is the hatnote correct in stating that this is an amateur competition? Furthermore, is it correct to state that the competitors in a/this College Football Playoff are limited to those that are, as the name suggests, college students? If I am correct on either or both counts (college students only, amateur competition), then I would disagree with your assertion that it is "little different" from NFL football. Chrisclear (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That it is amateur(which has been litigated in the US courts and is actually debatable) and involves college students is immaterial. College football draws larger crowds, larger TV audiences, and has larger stadiums than the NFL(at Division I, which this is). In essence, this is merely a different league, not a lower level league. What matters is how reliable sources cover this. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, logic would dictate that if it is an amateur (or quasi amateur) competition, then the pool of possible players is almost certain to be of lower quality than a professional league. Likewise, if the pool of possible players is limited to college students, then again, the skill level will be lower than a league with no such restrictions. As for crowd size, TV audience and stadium size, these reflect popularity, as opposed to encyclopaedic notability. Chrisclear (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The NFL has voluntarily banned players who haven't played college a few years (to encourage kids to not put excessive effort and hope into training football to the point that they get kicked out of college sports semesters for learning at <80% the normal speed) If they didn't do this then some kids would likely stop going to school on their 16th birthday (the earliest you can without Child Protective Services getting involved) in the usually misguided hope of getting skilled enough at football to make a living from it or even become an NFL millionaire. Also almost everyone trains but doesn't play their first year because of the 80% rule (unlike England college is 4 years in the USA because it includes 13th grade). This is called redshirting and means the players are usually 19 to almost 23. There's even free private boarding schools for the best secondary school football players (like IMG) who's academics are almost phony and they'll even let you stay, train and learn so you can delay the college. So it is more like a continent-scale under-23 league. There is no age limit or education ceiling, if you haven't played 4 years you can still play. And having to be a college student isn't much of a talent pool reducer due to how much football players are babied academically in most of the US (at least after elementary school). Teachers and professors grade them leniently, if they need it tutors get thrown at them, the easiest classes are never oversubscribed for them and so on. If you go to some football boarding schools the education isn't even accredited cause they're in states where if you say your school is religious they can't touch you even if that's clearly a front. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose lower-tier sports competition. Sports, music competitions/personalities should be judged on merit not on salaries etc, else any B/C-list pop musician will trump the best classical virtuosos and sports stars with celebrity value such as David Beckham will trump players with better competitive impact simply because the 'charismatic' players can sell more shirts/get more sponsors. Note also that the Arab and Chinese football leagues also pay similar or higher than European leagues, which does not make the quality the same or better. In fact, the Arab and Chinese leagues are worse than 2nd division European domestic leagues that are obviously not going to be posted. Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument: college football players are not paid a salary from their schools.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't put words into my mouth. I know that. Only insular morons wouldn't. I was responding to the arguments of your like-minded compatriots who were citing the coaches' salary and other non-sporting merit metrics as a reason to post Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a low-tier competition when it draws larger audiences and has bigger stadiums than the top professional league. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The EFL Championship play-off Final draws larger audiences than any match played in the Premier League, but it's still a match in the second tier of English football (for instance, the 2019 EFL Championship play-off Final was attended by 85,826 spectators, whereas the match with the highest attendance in the entire 2018–19 Premier League season had 81,332 spectators). Furthermore, note that EFL Championship is a professional league in a much more popular sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the British tiering system but what you describe seems akin to the difference between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball in the US.(The NFL does not really have a minor league system.) This is not like that. College football is a different league, not a lower league. College football has tiers based on university size and other factors(Division I, Division II, and Division III).  This game is part of Division I, the top level of college football. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * US and Canadian sports are built like the ill-fated European Super League. Sports leagues are not connected to each other. You can argue college football is a totally different "code" of gridiron vs. professional American football (same can be argued to college basketball and professional basketball in the US, plus leagues that follow the FIBA set of rules almost everywhere else), so you can argue further that Division I FBS is the top competition of the gridiron code known as college football. Premier League and EFL have always been played in the same FIFA set of rules and are actually connected to each other via promotion and relegation. Gridiron does share that concept. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much has been said in the past about why this shouldn't be posted (amateur sport, low-tier competition, low impact, lowering standard for similar sport events etc.) and, after ten years of debating, there are no signs that something has drastically changed. To those griping about why The Boat Race is an ITNR item, please go to the talk page and demand it be delisted if you think this is comparable to it. To those hanging on to the wide coverage, Novak Djokovic's entry to Australia is by far the main story (not only sport-related) in the world but we haven't even considered it, which clearly implies that news coverage doesn't always make a strong case for a story to be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for the same reasons as every other year. This is an amateur competition open only to students at a handful of universities, isn't the highest level of the sport, is partly decided by a selection panel rather than performance on the field etc. This has been discussed to death over the years. I understand that many Americans watch the event, but that isn't enough. I have consistently opposed any and all student sports items, in any sport or country, and will continue to do so. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have broken down this barrier by adding the basketball tournament to ITNR. I don't see why being a student should matter. The US Supreme Court has found that student athletes are exploited and prevented from being compensated fairly. Universities use their sports programs to generate revenue just as any NFL Team does. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have consistently opposed NCAA basketball on the same grounds, including in the ITNR discussion you link below. I don't see how the court ruling or profit motives are at all relevant to the discussion here. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because it means these players are not simple amateurs who play for the love of the sport. They are as invested as any "professional" player. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I urge participants here to review the discussion to add the basketball tournament to ITNR and while this is not an ITNR discussion, many of the same arguments apply. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're trying to wring water from a stone. The opposition to this item is primarily because its inclusion will pave the way for posting numerous other sport events with the qualities of being amateur and low-tier competitions. If we really have to increase the number of sport stories posted, then we should definitely go with a horizontal rather than a vertical expansion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to uphold our mission here. I don't think what you say is the case, but what if it was? What is wrong with that? We have already broken down the "amateur" barrier. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mistakes made in the past don't make a rule. Arguments can be drawn from virtually every successful ITNR nomination (not only ITN) to support the inclusion of zillion other stories which normally shouldn't be included. And truly upholding our mission is to identify stories from underrepresented countries with a large number of English speakers, such as India, Pakistan or Nigeria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I await your nominations. Reverse bias is not the answer. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Modest, Kiril, Masem. Hyped. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mistakes made in the past don't make a rule. Arguments can be drawn from virtually every successful ITNR nomination (not only ITN) to support the inclusion of zillion other stories which
 * I don't understand "hyped" as an argument. Everything we post is "hyped". 331dot (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh? – Sca (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Rankings This event is all over the top read articles list currently. The article rankings for yesterday include:
 * 2 Stetson Bennett
 * 5 Kirby Smart
 * 6 Nick Saban
 * 12 Georgia Bulldogs football
 * 13 Bryce Young
 * 14 College Football Playoff National Championship
 * 32 Alabama Crimson Tide football
 * 41 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship
 * 47 College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS
 * 58 2022 College Football Playoff National Championship
 * It's interesting that the nominated article is so far down the list.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As you should be aware by now, ITN is not a most-viewed article list. If you would like to eliminate ITN and replace it with a most-read article list, please propose that. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we are supposed to help people find articles they are already looking for, and clearly they are having trouble getting there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Gaelic Athletic Association items that have been at WP:ITNR would love to talk about amateurism. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Every single argument used to oppose this equally applies to events that are on ITN/R. We post many events that are 2nd tier (Japan Series, La Liga), amateur (Olympics, NCAA Basketball), have restricted participants (The Ashes, The Boat Race) or are of local or limited interest (PDC, Gaelic Football). Obviously, it's not that big of a deal if any of these (or CFP) gets posted or not. The issue for me is that we have guidelines and precedent that should be respected. Every so often, we throw them out the window and decide on pure sui generis, and this always leads to discontent and fights. The Betty White situation and Carrie Fisher before her are examples of this. People decide how they will !vote and then cherry-pick the evidence that supports their argument. There's no fix for this; like death blurbs, CFP is a blind spot of this project.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It is my understanding that we tend to post sporting events at the top level of their field only. I don't believe "amateur" status matters (GAA fan here) but if we're making that comparison, there is a difference between posting the top level finals in football/hurling versus posting the Hogan Cup finals. I'm not a gridiron fan and may be missing some nuance as a result but this seems to be clearly a tier below the Super Bowl, no? I wouldn't be in favour of posting the Europa League, Rugby Europe International Championships, etc and this seems to fall under the same remit. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can make the same comparison if GAA is also involved with organizing or sanctioning the Hogan Cup (I didn't bother to check, sorry). For what it's worth, the NCAA doesn't even sanction CFB, and the NFL more so isn't even connected in anyway with CFB. You can make the argument that NFL football and college football are different codes of gridiron, with CFB as the highest level of competition for the latter. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hogan Cup is a GAA competition, yes; it's a schools and colleges level competition as opposed to the senior county level one. I certainly don't know enough about gridiron to make or refute any argument about "different codes" but, earnestly, is this bigger than the Super Bowl? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but one could argue it's bigger than the other three US+Canada professional sports leagues (NBA, NHL, MLB) that's listed in ITNR. As argued above, college football stadiums are some of the largest stadiums on Earth. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many rule differences between college and NFL football and a single instance of rule difference can change who wins but they're still more alike than rugby league vs union. Probably, I don't know much about rugby. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Thank God that ITN isn't influenced simply by how much money gets thrown around this meat market of a sport that exploits amateur athletes.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You kinda seem to be saying that it isn't a fully amateur sport..... 331dot (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the players getting paid? WaltCip- (talk)  16:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They all but get paid- they simply don't get a cash salary. They get "scholarships", free housing, food, etc. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Since we broke down the barrier with the March Madness tournament, and the championship is a fairly large event. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernest Shonekan

 * Oppose some lines and paras are unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support citations have been added.  Princess of Ara  19:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Referencing is adequate but I am not wowed by the overall length and quality of an article about a former head of state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

President of European Parliament

 * Comment target article needs to be updated for this change of leader. And lots of the article needs sourcing too e.g. none of the presidents actually have sources for them (despite the table having a column for references). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be better now for all articles, I def think this is a very suitable nomination as its an important role, important death and notable background being the first from Malta. BastianMAT (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD only not too significant as death of the Queen Elizabeth II (morbid?), but still much worthly to be posted giving she was the first EP president from Malta but her notability is not so significant as prominent head of government/state. 125.167.57.110 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The comparison you make with Elizabeth II doesn't make much sense, to tell the truth. Sassoli's death is not the main subject of this nomination, and it shouldn't be. The debate here is whether the nomination of a new EP president should be on the Main Page. If it succeeds, it should obviously mention the death of the one who has been president until today, as it's the reason for the change in the leadership of this institution. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Questions Number 1: is the President of the European Parliament a "head of government"? List of current heads of state and government lists the heads of the EU as the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Number 2: do we usually post changes where the person taking charge is in an acting role? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No.
 * Not all the time. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the President of the European Commission is the key person in the EU (we posted Ursula von der Leyen election in 2019 but not Sassoli), besides, Metsola's article is not in shape to post at the moment. --Tone 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the main story here would be that Sassoli died in office. But it was posted as RD already. --Tone 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose this doesn't seem like a very prominent role (even though it's inherently international); in fact it looks more ceremonial than anything. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the "three presidencies" of the European Union is ceremonial in nature. Perhaps in EP president’s international activities, but its function is the same as that of any Speaker of any legislative assembly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The president of the parliament is the least influential of the three EU offices called 'president', behind the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission. Their role is equivalent to the Speaker of a national parliament. None of the recent holders of this office have attracted public attention. Being the first Maltese incumbent isn't particular significant either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose now people have cleared up for me that it's not the most important EU role. We wouldn't post the change of Speaker in the US or UK, so don't see why we should post this, as this EU role seem to be at a similar level to a speaker. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ahmet Yılmaz Çalık

 * With only 888 characters (154 words) of readable prose, this stub needs to be expanded quite a bit before it can qualify for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per PFHLai. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First pig to human heart transplant

 * Are they bloody? We don't need that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the submission. Which is the better target article? I don’t see either article being updated yet. We need a substantial update for this to be considered. The altblurb I supplied may be helpful if this progresses. Jehochman Talk 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would assume the xenotransplantation article (ALT1) would be appropriate for this scenario. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RFZYNSPY updated heart transplantation and started an article about the patient. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the patient article David Bennett Sr. isn't deleted for WP:BLP1E it might go nominated by the process at WP:DYKON. Xenotransplant has not been updated, and the update in heart transplant may not be sufficient. If this event is significant, it should be easy to find in those articles. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once some cn tags and some unsourced lines in both linked articles are fixed. A true milestone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only time will tell how significant this is, the first human-human heart transplants didn't exactly go well, to the point the ethics of continuing were questioned. If he lives for ten years I'm willing to overlook the criminal language redundancy (ground-breaking breakthrough), but not after a few days. This isn't a Louise Brown style moment with a natural point of success, nor the first xenotransplantation. 3142 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, subject to article quality. I think xenotransplantation would be the natural target article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per 3142. DYK. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both per 3142 and because it’s unlikely to make the Top 25 report, as the nominator is so keen on trying to skew ITN towards the most read articles. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E462:BF8E:70DD:6A60 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 3142 as not the first xenotransplating operation. --M asem (t) 02:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose for lack of event or biography article, but an interesting chapter in medical history, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'd support this but we lack a article on the event; the ones available are tangential. Banedon (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Banedon. No article, no blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, We have to wait and see what the results will be. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon. We generally don't post events that don't have their own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once tags are resolved; this is noteworthy, rare medical news. While it's unusual to post an event that does not have it's own target article, I think xenotransplantation works as a target article for this event. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle as a significant event. Very widely covered on Thursday; some follow-ups today.  – Sca (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Sassoli

 * Support in principle. Article looks okay, still needs a bit work, important person and a tragic death. BastianMAT (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange-tagging his article. Many unsourced paragraphs and lines. And I think his two years as president of the European Parliament should have deeper coverage. Far from ready, IMO. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added where missing. --Yakme (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Everything seems to be sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine for RD now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is a heavily significant event and should be included. The article is additionally well written.Dunutubble (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jules Wright (politician)

 * Support Covers what he was notable for. Any info for what Wright was up to after 1984? (Presume he withdrew from political life).  Spencer T• C 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is not an issue at all. Long enough (544 words) and has enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. Spencer, the info you asked about may be at the end of the "Early life and private sector" section. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Thanks PFHLai, I missed that.  Spencer T• C 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Khan Jamal

 * Support Meets minimum standards for depth, referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Greenberg

 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deon Lendore

 * Comment expanded to start class, which I think is just about good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Chang'e 5's detection of water on moon

 * Support and Comment* Might not a better target article be Lunar water as that’s really the more newsworthy part of it rather than the probe that detected it? ~ 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:ED31:A490:2B71:29B5 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think there was a real chance that the "likely water" would turn out not to be water, in which case this is a minor advance. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, the blurb is factually incorrect, this detection was not in the samples brought back to Earth, but using a spectrometer on the lander. Water has been found in numerous lunar samples returned to Earth, but by the Apollo and Luna missions in the 1970s. There are also numerous spectroscopic observations of water in lunar craters taken from orbit e.g. by Chandrayaan-1. Detecting it using a similar instrument on a lander is both expected and unexciting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taskeen Manerwal

 * With 1999 characters of readable prose, this wikibio is a bit short but its length is still passable (Start-class). There seems to be enough footnotes. AGF'd all non-English refs. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Needs a couple more sentences about his poetry. I see from the article that he wrote poetry about romance, but that's about it.  Spencer T• C 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 364 words of readable prose now. Wanna take another look, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Falkenburg

 * Support Article looks pretty good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Maynard

 * Support good article, well-referenced, NFL legend. The Kip (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. I've added information about the first three references, which were just titled "Archived copy" - something I think we should be looking out to fix before promoting to the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead needs to highlight some of his major accomplishments.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , already done. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Robert Durst

 * Support, ticks the boxes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Definitely notable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There are two CN tags near the bottom, but neither are of sufficient importance to hold up posting. Overall article quality is solid. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- the wub "?!"  20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding new cn tags. The fact that it was posted in less than an hour without having solved the tags that were already there and with several lines without source was, without a doubt, reckless. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra diligence. At time of posting the only CN tags were in the "In popular culture" section, plus two "failed verification" tags elsewhere that I resolved. I'm fairly new to helping with ITN though, so won't object if any other admins think this needs to be pulled. the wub "?!"  20:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More than 10 CN tags now. Please pull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled for now, as there are plenty of unreferenced statements. Stephen 22:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still about 10 {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: James Mtume

 * Comment: Please remove me as an updater, all I did was fix the broken infobox and remove a low quality source, I was not involved with any of the content on the page. In terms of this RD candidate, I am currently Neutral, the page is nowhere near ready for RD, especially when it comes to references. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto here. My edits were very minor, and the article does need more work.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are missing (and so tagged) at a few spots in the prose. And there are dozens of footnote-free bullet-points from the Discography section and onwards. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are now no more {cn} tags in the prose, but the Discography section has remained unsourced. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Ewing

 * Comment Can someone check the Ancestry.com reference?  Article looks sufficiently sourced otherwise. Joofjoof (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article picture (a yearbook photo) is from Ancestry.com. Joofjoof (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Saget

 * Support Famous actor, definitely reaches RD requirement User:Hcoder3104 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "RD requirement" is a recent death in the news, which he meets, and an article of decent quality for the mainpage, which he currently does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now orange tagged for citations. No personal life section to discuss his two marriages? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a short personal life section. Please check out the citations. Mooonswimmer 16:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready per Muboshgu. Referencing in particular needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm just glad Betty White and Sidney Poitier's articles were in better shape than Bob Saget's. That is an important milestone for en.wiki. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, Full House is not particularly funny. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine now jonas (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I originally came here for the express purpose of supporting this, but unfortunately, the article just doesn't look ready. The section '2001–2022' is entirely WP:PROSELINE, and the 'Personal life' section, while a good effort in such a short time, just feels somewhat empty, likely due to Saget's cultural relevance being at its strongest in the era of print newspaper. In addition to e.g. Newspapers.com, I feel like there has to be some uncontroversial stuff in his autobiography, 'Dirty Daddy'. I went ahead and moved 'Charity work' into 'Personal life', and even then it's just heavily overshadowed by the 'Death' section.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  23:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved. While there's two cn tags (that I've seen) I don't think they should hold up the nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few {cn} tags in the prose. Multiple items in the tables in the Filmography section are unreferenced; perhaps some footnotes in the prose may be re-used in these tables. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * CN tags you out for items that were already cited in either the prose or the tables. It’s disingenuous to call his HIMYM and Fuller House roles uncited. It feels like a deliberate attempt to make it look unready. Honestly I think the career section needs rebalancing. The post-AFV stuff covers 20 years while the section with AFV is considerably smaller covering 14 years--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "disingenuous"? It is not "a deliberate attempt to make it look unready," but a deliberate attempt to highlight missing items. It doesn't look ready without the footnotes in the right spots. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support only if... - The article, especially the subsection of his career between 2001 until his death, is written like a very simplified summary rather than an article. Could be edited to make it much, much more readable. -PenangLion (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * support as of now, article has no maintenance tags, covers the subject adequately, and the concerns raised above have been resolved. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is still a citation needed tag next to the statement about Dirty Work (1998 film) to be resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done – tag now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – It's been three days someone post it already. Hcoder3104 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still a few {cn} tags in the tables in the Filmography section. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * done – all CN tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bloom. Posted.  Apart from those 2 listed above, there may be more wikipedians deserving ITN credits, but I don't have time to go through the long edit history to check today. Sorry. --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why was it removed? -Hcoder3104 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * a max. of 6 recent deaths are listed at any given time. After an item is featured for 24+ hours on the Main Page, it gets cycled off for a newer RD. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bloom6132. Yes, Hcoder3104, that was what happened. It's not always 24h, though. Sometimes certain names get to stay on that RD line much longer when there are not enough new names ready to displace them. --PFHLai (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Bronx apartment fire

 * Support major fire disaster, should be mentioned on the front page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:E8EA:A4B4:A991:C5B2 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- at 19 deaths, this fire is one of the worst in modern US history. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits. Oppose tying in a fire from four days ago in a completely different city that was not posted. Not sure The Bronx is recognized worldwide. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough -- I just figured that both could be combined in a single blurb, like we did when there were two mass shootings back-to-back in the US a few years back. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also: The Bronx may not be recognized everywhere, but I'm sure New York City is. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an alt blurb with just NYC. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Bronx, oppose Philadelphia The article for the Philadelphia fire remains a stub, and in any case I don't think we should combine two events into a single blurb if the only connection between them is timing. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WAIT. The stubby wikipage only has 1417 characters of readable prose. Obviously too short and not ready. --PFHLai (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Both articles are far too short for posting on the main page. Will reconsider if/when they are expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose Article will improve when more details emerge. Would favor alt 2, as specifying borough seems unnecessary and potentially confusing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. At 237 words of text at 23:30, article is a stub. – Sca (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NYC, Oppose Philadelphia the Philadelphia article is a stub and I’m not sure if coincidental timing merits including it if there isn’t sufficient coverage - but the NYC fire is a significant event which is all over the news. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 00:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose incorporating Philly story It is a completely unconnected event and far less eventful than the Bronx one. --M asem (t) 01:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a major disaster. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for Bronx, oppose for Phila - It is severe (as told by the government 'as the worst in NYK for decades'), but I have my personal doubts about it being a 'significant disaster' in the country (in relative, the severity of the fire at Osaka last month killed 26, a similar figure, and was deemed ITN-worthy) Is the death toll expected to rise? (PenangLion (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Oppose on quality barely more than a stub article, needs more information. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm a strong oppose on the blurb including the Philadelphia one, as the two are not linked in any way. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment We usually post fires with casualties but the article on this one is way too short and tells absolutely nothing about the investigation, reactions and immediate aftermath. I don't think that Grenfell Tower fire should be considered a standard, considering that it's really an excellent article, but there's definitely room for major improvement (note that even the 2017 Bronx apartment fire, which was not posted, has a much better article).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. It's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Monday coverage says 32 people hospitalized, 13 in critical. Article still seems thin, with only 120 out of 325 words devoted to the fire itself. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support despite quality - It's unlikely we will know more about the disaster's causes and background until an investigation is launched, which could take weeks, and then months thereafter to reach a conclusion. That does not mitigate the disaster's scope and newsworthiness.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Major disaster, the article has enough information.Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now for one of The Bronx blurbs (without Philadelphia). Article looks good enough now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Bronx fire posting - major disaster, looks like being the worst in the city since the Happy Land fire over 30 years ago. Article is long enough now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting and I'm using "the Bronx" in the blurb, because it's recognizable enough. If you haven't seen A Bronx Tale, I recommend it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The death toll has been revised down to 17 (nine adults, eight children) per updates issued by city medical examiners earlier today. rawmustard (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing that out. I've revised the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Jennings

 * Long enough (546 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Parks (reporter)

 * Comment Some tags are present. Article could benefit from more details, such as the context for his 1987 Pulitzer prize. Joofjoof (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * lead expanded. I cannot extrapolate more than what is said in the source that verifies the statement tagged as vague, I'll let other reviewers decide the issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Capitólio rock collapse

 *  Comment Oppose – Quite a bit of coverage, but lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support primarily based on the highly unusual nature of the event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rockfalls are commonplace. What's unusual about this one is that several tourists were killed by it. I don't think that makes it important enough. It's more suitable for DYK. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual. Tragic. And you just know that had this happened in America, it would have been posted within the hour of the nomaination 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, although this discussion and the article would be a lot longer had it happened in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or the UK. – Sca (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't have been posted if it occurred in the US or the UK. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With just seven fatals, that's probably so. I was reacting, maybe excessively, to a faint sniff of anti-American bias. – Sca (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support -- it is receiving coverage because of how unlucky the victims were to be right underneath the rockfall, but I am not sure if that alone warrants a blurb. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Thank you for working on this article. Usually we post tragedies with higher numbers of casualties.  This one is very marginal, but maybe it could be a WP:DYK.  My reservation is that DYKs often have humorous hooks, but this article obviously is not for comedy. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Unusual incident, but it doesn't feel ITN-worthy to me. The severity is limited (10 died), the disaster isn't a defining event in the country or region (a tragic disaster, but not an impactful one). It's more of a bizarre tragedy suited for DYK instead (like how previous contributors have noted). If the situation worsens however (like an increased death toll), I would give my support, though I still have my doubts. (PenangLion (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Take it to DYK. We are likely not getting a consensus to post but the article meets all the requirements for DYK. --Tone 08:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be suitable for DYK & its hook could be worded in a serious way. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support the death toll is now 10, and it is being covered in news sources. Article is a decent quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still don't see broader significance. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Periodic reminder that significance is not a binary. 10 people may not meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but a mass casualty rock slide is unusual, and the article is of good quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per GreatCaesarGhost. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 6-3 in favor. Can an admin weigh in?   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine. My vote was neutral but the casualty count increased since then, the article quality is good, and the photo is good quality. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion I suggest removing “at least”. All victims have been identified. ArionEstar (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Gore (physicist)

 * Support Short but adequate. Good job on the referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- the wub "?!"  00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lourdes Castro

 * Weak Support Not wowed by the article's length but I think it is, barely, adequate. No other issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Bare but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robert Hughes

 * Not Quite Ready A few cites needed. Article length is sub-optimal for promotion on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose too short and more citations needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Current length at 2402 characters (396 words of readable prose) is okay, but there are still a few {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Hiranmay Sen Gupta

 * Not Ready Article is a stub and requires expansion. That said, referencing is not bad for a change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, article is not a stub, neither by tagging nor by classification. That said, I agree, as noted by me above, it is a tad short and can benefit from expansion. It is a start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose CV in prose format; only one sentence about research work. Does not meet 3 well-rounded paragraph minimum.  Spencer T• C 06:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand . Unfortunately, I have hit a wall on what I can find online. I can work on reading a few of his papers and summarizing them, but, I am wondering if that is a good approach. Let me know of your thoughts. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that would be considered WP:OR, as typically primary literature shouldn't be cited in articles, in favor of secondary or tertiary sources.  Spencer T• C 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Anyways, I think we might miss the boat on this one. Let me see what I can do. C'est la vie. Have a nice day. Ktin (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, this is the best I could get the article to. RIP. Life well lived. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(Attention) Murree snowstorm

 * "Incident" seems like an odd title. --M asem (t) 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. It's a stub. Will reconsider if/when article is adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose as article is only a stub. Once it is at least start class, !vote will become a Support. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Dubious article but odd and noteworthy event This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite widely covered, considerable mortality, but basically a weather story. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - What makes this notable is the large number of people visiting Murree to see the snow, then many being stranded there when the snowfall increased, some dying as a result. It's not merely a run-of-the-mill weather event. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WAIT. Not counting the bullet-points under "Reactions", there are only 181 words of readable prose on this stubby wikipage. Obviously, still too short and not ready. Not to mention the orange tags for {missing information} and the need for more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's significantly better now. Jim Michael (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WAIT, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality we don't post stubs on the front page. Needs more information about the event/event background. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — I've just expanded the article substantially and while it still needs a lot of work I think it's acceptable enough quality for the front page now.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are still reference errors. Significant and decently covered but it's a bit low on citations. Would give full support if more citations are added. -PenangLion (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still more recent than the RD of Sidney Poitiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only objections to posting it are that the article isn't good enough, but it is now. Jim Michael (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amanda Asay

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. RIP.  Spencer T• C 06:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eberhard Zeidler

 * Support Adequate depth, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Laína

 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- the wub "?!"  00:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: José Évrard

 * Not Ready Article is a stub and poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This stub has only 203 words of readable prose. Any more stuff to write about this guy, please? --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerson da Cunha

 * Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Dromey

 * Not ready for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are any remaining shortcomings, it would be very helpful if you could mark them. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any more? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support seems good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks ready to be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lani Guinier

 * Not Quite Ready Article is not bad but there are a couple of cites needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Thoroughly referenced now and about as ready as we’re going to be I think! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is in great condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Sidney Poitier

 * "Personally I pronounce it Harry Belafonte".Support blurb, nicely improved.  SN54129  —  Review here please :)  15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot of sourcing help before ready. --M asem (t) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready Needs some referencing work. Once ready Support blurb, Poitier was a giant in the entertainment industry and arguably the first black actor to make the Hollywood A list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article does not give any indication he was a major force in Hollywood. I don't disagree with the assessment he was important, but the article lacks clear statements to this degree, and really should cover that if he was to get a blurb. --M asem (t) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To add, it does look like the long-form obits coming out should help establish this legacy. --M asem (t) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * & I've added a legacy section. I'm still expanding it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when ready One of the most important actors who has ever lived, and his death is big news. If you want to talk "transformative in their field", that's Sidney Poitier. I do agree with Masem above who noted that the article isn't there yet and doesn't quite state his importance in a sufficient manner. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support blurb in principle if fixed. The article is woefully undersourced, and fails to make clear his importance, which is not helped by the fact that all his awards and honours are listed in a separate page, with no summary on the article. Therefore, the awards and honours doesn't even mention that He became the first Black actor to win the Academy Award for Best Actor for Lilies of the Field (1963). He also received a Grammy Award, two Golden Globe Awards and a British Academy Film Award. Which would be the basis for blurbing this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just being frequently awarded would not be sufficient for a blurb. Poitier has a lot more than just a distinguished acting career that makes him a reasonable blurb, but the fact he helped break the race barrier for Hollywood, which needs to be emphasized more. --M asem (t) 16:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready Most important actor and certainly (without debate) top of his field. Article needs work though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as he was an iconic actor and a household name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb a highly acclaimed and renowned actor, first African-American winner of a Oscar for best actor.--TheDutchViewer (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb absolutely. What he accomplished is most certainly a sui generis example of what RD blurbs were made for.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And FYI, at 16:47 GMT, the U.K. should be well and truly awake to weigh in on this discussion. --WaltCip- (talk)  16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when the article is fully sourced; it currently contains several cn tags. He won many awards, including the top ones. This is the level of achievement that someone should be at in order to be blurbed - rather than beloved, popular, national treasure, very long career etc. which was used to post Betty White. About 99% of notable entertainers aren't blurb-worthy; Poitier is one of the few who is. Jim Michael (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD Body of work and impact of career not especially notable. Framing of Oscar win by others here is more an achievement by Academy voters. Dr Fell (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting stance to plant your flag on. WaltCip- (talk)  17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting because it's true. A black actor can (and has been known to) work his or her dramatic ass off, and still easily be snubbed year after year. The dead white voters made that change, for one year, 58 years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, it might have something to do with the fact that this particular performance was so undeniably worthy of the Oscar. BD2412  T 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair play to him. He met the annual Borgnine/Hackman standard someone always does. But how many here have seriously watched that 1963 movie this millenium? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready; possibly worth mentioning in the blurb the fact that he was the first Black man to win the Best Actor Oscar. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb based on "transformative in their field", which in my opinion describes him well and sets him apart from other popular actors who would fall short of a blurb. Rhino131 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: I haven't checked article quality, but Poitier is iconic and transformative enough to warrant a blurb.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle If we are going to do the "transformative in their field" thing, this is a perfect candidate. (I'm aware it's not ready quality-wise yet).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , : I've fixed the article in terms of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb now that sourcing has been fixed with no more CN tags. I would also support mentioning his transformative effect on race in Hollywood within the blurb. Kafoxe (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if ready. Breakthrough black actor should deserve a blurb. - Angga (formerly Angga1061) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For a blurb (which agree here is a reasonable case for a blurb), we really should expand "enough" of the "Awards" section to talk of his legacy in addition to other accomplishments. This is more than just being the first black actor to win an Oscar, but the fact he continued to fight for better representation in Hollywood after the fact and several other black actors were influenced by his success. --M asem (t) 18:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD as sourcing is there, but blurb discussion should continue. --M asem (t) 18:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the only remaining question is if the groundbreaking aspect is sufficiently covered. There is almost no opposition to a blurb(one oppose was for quality). 331dot (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Old Man Dies If this were 1964 and the blurb was about his Oscar, that'd be a story. Same as if this were 1983 and the blurb was about Atlas and Johnson's big step forward. But it's 2022, and the blurb is 100% about ripe old age. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your argument that he was not transformative in his field? 331dot (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'd have said so. It's that the blurb is about him dying at 94. Are you saying Rocky Johnson wasn't transformative? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but it wasn't clear to me that an issue with the blurb was being raised. When I wrote it, I used the standard format that we typically do here as a starting point, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)
 * No worries, this is my standard objection to that automatically boring formula, alt's slightly better (still opposed, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when IH would hit us with the old “old man dies” and I’m glad you once again do not disappoint. Calidum  23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support altblurb, with Academy Award win mentioned. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support +altblurb. Transformative figure. Shame we can't call him Sir Vigil Tibbs, but never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Kudos to TDKR Chicago 101 for building out a legacy section to make this clear why we blurbed him. --M asem (t) 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Transformative, should be updated. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support altblurb. BD2412  T 22:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb I know my opposition is pretty useless but just wanted to point out that this is, yet again, sheer americano-centrism. With all due respect to the actor, the rest of the world couldn't care less.Varoon2542 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Big picture of this great actor on the frontpage of a major Czech daily newspaper I bought this Saturday. He was well known (and admired) even behind the Iron Curtain.Pavlor (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to see more non-Americans posted, please nominate them. We can only consider what is nominated.  Instead of suppressing stories from any particular country, which is reverse-bias, the way to see more postings is to work to get things you want to see posted, posted. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per instructions above: Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But it's the weight of American items. Similarly, RD is almost entirely people from the Anglosphere. We currently have 2 blurbs and 6 RD names, all from the English-speaking world (if you include India). If Mel Brooks and Dick Van Dyke go soon, the entire news section will be about geriatric American entertainers. The 5 main Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Can, NZ, Aus) are only 6% of the world's people, we should try and make it so that they only get say, maximum 20% of the news. I could submit Brazilian and Chinese news all day but that's unlikely to make any real difference. Surely discussing the matter on this page is the first step towards fixing it? Sheila1988 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: "americano-centrism" and "American items", Poitier was raised in the Bahamas by Bahamian parents, and was for ten years the Bahamian ambassador to Japan. His acting awards include six British Academy Film Awards nominations, and two German film festival awards. BD2412  T 02:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we had not posted Betty White (who is nowhere close to the same level of "major figure" as Poitier, I doubt we've people questioning this one. Hence why I think we need to be looking for higher bars to demonstrate "major figure" and avoid blurbs that are based on popularity or the like. --M asem (t) 02:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting because I have also seen it argued that the bar for a death blurb is too high, not too low.(I don't have it handy) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Please do nominate articles about events from China and Brazil, if they are indeed in the news. We can only consider what is nominated. That's the way to fix it. Artificially suppressing stories from any particular country is just reverse bias. RD postings are easier than a regular ITN posting; to post to RD all that is required is that the subject have an article that is updated with information on their death. We can't control when people die(obviously). Sometimes it just happens that we get a spat of deaths from a particular area. It also happens that people choose to improve articles about people that they notice have passed in the news- this we can control, and I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing/Update blurb 2022 Kazakh protests

 * Comment Why not using WP:ERRORS to update the blurb, or at least becoming ongoing? 36.77.64.79 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The correct process for updating an incremental story such as this is to move it to ongoing.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to ongoing, Never done an ongoing nom before, better? BastianMAT (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Escalating story, definitive support--Roncanada- (talk)  15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – A blurb is preferable until it rolls off the page. Not sure an ongoing discussion is necessary now. Can an admin just update the blurb and close this discussion? Obviously, if this situation is ongoing in a couple of days and new ITN items have pushed it off the Main Page, it should be added to ongoing. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is the top blurb at the moment, with a picture, moreover! Leave it until it rolls of ITN, then consider ongoing (which should be easy if the story is still unfolding). On the other hand, if there is some major development, the blurb can be updated. (this is the standard process) --Tone 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not top anymore. Photo gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Pretty agree with Tone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: "A request that the page title be changed to 2022 Kazakh uprising is under discussion." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Tone. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait support ongoing once it moves off the blurbs, although as that'll be in a week or so, may need to re-nominate for ongoing then <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage Saturday includes 40 dead:      – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb needs an udate. Some "protests against a sharp increase in fuel prices" are one thing, but at least 40 dead, a huge influx of Russian troops and a "shoot-to-kill" policy are another. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Do something. Clearly, the current blurb is not suitable, and if we can't work out one that is I believe we should pull it now and add it to ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The blurb has been updated to "Protests against a sharp increase in fuel prices result in at least 40 deaths and 4,400 arrests across Kazakhstan." for now. Please continue with the discussions on moving to "Ongoing". I don't see consensus to move there yet. --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Thanks to all who helped make the blurb correspond to several days of RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment,, confirmed by the government to be over 5800 detained now and over 160 killed.BastianMAT (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Toll update to 164 seems necessary. 24    – Sca (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated to "...at least 160 deaths and 5,800 arrests..." --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Should this go to "Ongoing" yet? --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I'm asking this because the wikipage's edit history seems less busy the past two days. So, I wonder if there is still interest in keeping it current, which is a requirement for staying on "Ongoing". --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Article updates are starting to fall off; would prefer to reassess in two days with a new Ongoing nom.  Spencer T• C 06:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing as it's still ongoing, and has rolled off of the blurbs. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Zamfara massacres
Support because it's certainly notable enough & the article easily good enough. A triple-digit death toll and thousands have been displaced. Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article meets quality requirements, and attacks appear notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – obvious notability, article is of sufficient quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: F. Sionil José

 * Not ready Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the Works section remains unsourced. Some older links used as refs need updating or replacement. More refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Bogdanovich

 * Not ready per nom. Referencing is quite poor and will require dramatic improvement before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Influential filmmaker. As a director, was "A leading voice of ’70s Hollywood" . He is called "legendary" , iconic , "fearless genius of cinema"  and "champion of cinema" . Also was known for his appearances as an actor.  Numerous tributes accross film industry. He was also called legendary previously. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is orange-tagged. Also, oppose blurb even if sourcing is fixed, as no evidence he's as transformative as the people who get blurbed on ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Scorcese and Coppola elaborate on his influence . He " inspired a new generation of filmmakers, from Wes Anderson to Noah Baumbach" . "Influential director"(The Times) . He was everyone in film industry, from director, auteur, writer, actor, to film critic and film scholar("has an equally storied legacy working as a film critic, historian and speaker", The Wrap) . "He served as a surrogate film professor for a generation"(THR) And he was nominated for Academy Awards. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably this is all pointing to being influential (which numerous directors and actors tend to be), but not transformative in establishing new approaches or the like. Plus the article is lacking any detailed explanation that would help to convince on this point. --M asem (t) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to grasp the difference between "legendary", "influential" and transformative. He inspired filmmakers. Here is written more: "Peter Bogdanovich set the table for the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino by pioneering an intriguing new approach to cinema: making movies about other movies". He was also "Pioneer Of New Hollywood", "a key figure in the New Hollywood Movement of 1970s". I think "pioneering" indicates that he was transformative figure. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, he was influential and so we can find many quotes to attest to that fact. But the same would hold for other film makers. Some objective evidence is provided by this list of the most critically acclaimed directors (https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm), and there he ranks "only" 180. So not in the same league as say Coppola, Hsiao-Hsien or Malick. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:DC76:45E9:14A5:FE83 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that website is not reliable source and that lots of filmakers on the list died, I am not sure what this url brings to the discussion. "But the same would hold for other film makers." - not many filmmakers were nominated for Academy Award and were listed along with "Dennis Hopper, Arthur Penn, Robert Altman, Hal Ashby" (see Peter Bogdanovich there). Kirill C1 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable and objective source, certainly more so than cherry-picked statements. On academy awards, yes, he was nominated once and only once. Like many other filmmakers. In fact, some of these other filmmakers even WON the academy award ;-) And btw, the article you cite emphasizes six filmmakers as key filmmakers. Guess what - Bogdanovich is not one of them, and is merely mentioned as being part of a broader wave of filmmakers. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:DC76:45E9:14A5:FE83 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A website named theyshootpictures.com which has 14 urls in Wikipedian articles is more reliable than The Guardian, Wrap, THR, Variety. The director is called legendary. See the full quote"Legendary director Peter Bogdanovich, who came to prominence amid the Hollywood Renaissance of the '70s, has died at the age of 82. He leaves behind an astonishing film legacy, with the likes of Paper Moon, Daisy Miller, and his Oscar-nominated hit The Last Picture Show having an immeasurable imprint on Hollywood history." And more:"...there's no doubt that Bogdanovich will be remembered as one of New Hollywood's most prominent pioneers...The passing of Bogdanovich feels like an epochal moment: one of the greats of Hollywood's most shining era, gone at a time which has never been more uncertain." "An icon of “New Hollywood” of the 1960s and 1970s". He was nominated for two Oscars, won BAFTA, Grammy, won at Venice Film Festival and San Sebastián International Film Festival, and was nominated for Palme d'Or and Golden Berlin Bear. So he had an illustrious career. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Come on, we seem to be dropping the ball a bit here. Blurbing is rare, not the norm, and is only reserved for truly transformative and unique figures. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "the unique and extraordinary role Bogdanovich played" . I would certainly describe writer-director who clearly had a reputation of auteur but also appeared on top-rated shows such as Sopranos, Simpsons and Good Wife and was also journalist and film scholar, inspiring many filmmakers as unique. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Old man dies, no blurb Yeah I don't see why he warrants a blurb. Was not "transformative" at all in his field.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 18:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Oh come on, this is getting a bit silly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OMD As silly for a white guy who made not-exactly-popular-but-familiar titles as it is for a black guy or Antonio Inoki. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as nominator. It's probably self-evident since I didn't nominate it as such, but to make it clear. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's all forget about blurbing and focus the discussion here on article quality and readiness for use on MainPage. There are quite a few paragraphs with zero footnotes. There is an orange tag at the top of the wikipage asking for better sourcing. Can we have more refs, please? --PFHLai (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added refs, there are 120 of them now. I do not know about scholarly commentaries section, maybe it should be deleted. If anyone would add refs, it would be great. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready. I think it is ready to be posted. Around 180 refs now. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Let's hope an admin notices this in time. Ping PFHLai as they made the request for more refs.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pawnkingthree & Kirill C1. It's fine. I can't find the footnote-free paragraphs anymore. --PFHLai (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Looks sufficient to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Does he really belong at the beginning of all RDs? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , we changed it from listing by date of death to date of posting, because otherwise Bogdanovich would be on and off in the blink of an eye. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Nongkynrih

 * Oppose Several gaps in referencing and the article has a rather promotional tone to it. Needs some work . -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are still 2 {cn} tags. And, some of the more flowery language needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * tags have been filled. I have made edits across the article to improve the tone. Streamlined sections as well. Reasonable C-class biography. Please have a look and let me know if you want any additional edits. Thanks for checking. Ktin (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ktin, for the new footnotes and the revisions. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. I wonder if Ad Orientem would like a second look at this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lawrence Brooks

 * Support Short article but sufficient for RD, pretty well sourced JW 1961 Talk 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Short and clean RD. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. RIP! Sad to see him go. Short article but sufficient for RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kim Mi-soo

 * Oppose Article is a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short, and violates fair image usage, as we shouldn't have two fair use images on the article (doing so violates fair use, thus the article's images are a copyright violation). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * very weak support. Everything is referenced (indeed overly so in a couple of cases), and there are no images so that seems resolved. However it is short and would significantly benefit from expansion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Events described in future tense (funeral) have already happened. Updating is needed. Expansion there may help make the article a bit longer. Currently with 1737 characters (294 words) of readable prose, not much additional text is needed to make it a passable non-stub. --PFHLai (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Saleh Al-Luhaidan

 * Oppose on Quality. For a top Saudi scholar, the article is quite short, and the only sources are those reporting his death. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Though a bit short with 1919 characters (337 words) of readable prose, this non-stub has a passable length to qualify. Need more footnotes, though. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sindhutai Sapkal

 * Support. Article looks good and well sourced. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice, well-sourced article. AryKun (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per both the above JW 1961 Talk 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William M. Ellinghaus

 * Support. Article is referenced and seems minimally comprehensive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (500+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Max Fordham

 * Oppose. Still large gaps in the referencing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Continuing to lack refs and footnotes in too many paragraphs. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Matchick

 * Support - Just one sentence needs sourcing or removing - in the Personal life section "They also adopted a daughter, Amanda" JW 1961 Talk 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment. Sentence has been removed. Looks good, sad death of a player from my favorite team. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Kazakh protests

 * Support, will support blurb as well, since state of emergency until 19 January has been declared. Brandmeistertalk  21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, the government has resigned, added 2 alt blurbs (may need to double check them for grammar, im not a native speaker) 5.44.170.26 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updated alt blurbs, I'll touch them up a little for grammar Pacific26 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The timeline needs to be updated with the resignation of the government, otherwise this has grown to the ITN level story, support posting. --Tone 08:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated with sources. Brandmeistertalk  12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality needs information/decent source (i.e. not RT) on the resignation of the government. Consider this a supprt once that's done. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, Western sources added now. Brandmeistertalk  12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How reliable is the US -funded RFERL? Mooonswimmer 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Alt blurb preferred over Alt II. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very widely covered by Eng.-lang. RS sites on Wednesday. Seems potentially significant, at least to the region. (Unsurprisingly, the Russians are warning everyone else to stay out of 'their' back yard.) However, the article is organized in an unusual day-by-day scheme, and many citations are to non-English sources. Some, such as cite No. 19 to Central Asia Media, do offer English versions. On English Wiki, more English refs would be better. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-English language sources are acceptable, and the coverage may be better in the non-English version of a source compared to its English version. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support This has international significance and should be recognized as such in ITN. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, The government has resigned, makes it important news. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments, Kazakh president has requested CSTO intervention. Russian (and other CSTO) troops/MPs are likely to enter the country in the next few hours. We should update the blurb accordingly as it happens. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * comment' CSTO Collective Security Council has unilterally agreed to send troops/mps to Kazakhstan to stop the rioting (https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/csto-collective-security-council-to-deploy-pe-1442241.html) 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Shoot-to-kill ordered by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Twenty-six protestors reported dead.    – Sca (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See #Ongoing/Update blurb 2022 Kazakh protests above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Corsi (baseball)

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Viktor Saneyev

 * With 600+ words, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Coverage seems okay, but more descriptions on what happened at other competitions (apart from the 1980 Olympics) would be great. Refs are missing from a couple of spots, and there are some old refs that need to be updated or replaced. This is close to be ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I addressed the tagged issues, but if there's anything else needed just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extra citations. This wikibio looks to be READY for RD now. Please note that the link in footnote #7 does not seem to lead to pertinent information. Perhaps this should be updated or replaced. I don't think this one defect should hold this RD nomination back, though. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Citation #6 ("Viktor Sanayev Biography") has all the relevant information without any ambiguity. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kaiser matias. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support now looks good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beatrice Mintz

 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 PDC World Darts Championship

 * Support. Article looks in good shape with sourced prose about the tournament including the final. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditionally Support We generally posting the victory of a person who awarding the tournament as ITNR, so why not posted as ITNR? Aside from that, the article looks in good shape.125.167.57.8 (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no darts events at WP:ITNR, so this nomination requires vetting.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I accept that it's not just a bar game in some parts of the world, but I don't have a sense of its signficance. There was no front page coverage at The Independent's UK page nor ESPN.co.uk, but there was at ESPN.nl and BBC.com.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I am against this being part of ITNR because I don’t think this event is significant enough. Tradedia talk 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an ITNR nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sporting event that is not of global importance.  Sandstein   09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Global importance" is not to be found anywhere in the ITN criteria. If global importance was required, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the tournament included competitors from 30 countries on nearly every continent. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We really should be trying to feature at most one top level routine event from any organized type of competition as long as we know that's regularly covered by news (so that speed underwater basketweaving competition sadly won't make it) so that we have a broad spectrum of these across a year. This seems like the top tier event in darts, and is covered, so this seems appropriate. --M asem (t) 13:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose not important event for me. 116.206.35.4 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That this is not personally important to you is not a reason to oppose this nomination, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the World Darts Championship is important to every man, woman and child, whether they are into darts or not. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not particularly interested in darts, but this is a decent article in terms of quality, including sourced prose of the final match. This topic is in the news and I think posting it fulfills our purpose. We've also posted it before. The oppose arguments given are not particularaly persuasive. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support primarily because it is good original content, which is our primary purpose. The significance debate is fine, but we have established general consensus that one event per significant sport (minimum) is appropriate.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article, in the news, posted in the last 3 occurrences, Oppose rationales are generally WP:IVENEVERHEARDOFIT. We post a number of sporting events (indeed, many are ITNR) whose significance to much of the world is negligible. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, only 3 of the last 4: Not 2021.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I assumed it had been cancelled last year. Looks like the problems with it were quality related though. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Good quality and fully updated article. Top event in a significant sport. the wub "?!"  13:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Top tier event, decent article, in the news.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - It's the top event of a sport that's watched in multiple countries with contesters from all over the world (which is more than can be said of certain ITNR sporting events....), there should be no question on notability for ITN. There is a "[clarification needed]" buried in the article that need fixing first though. -- KTC (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Because this has been posted three of the last four years - last year being the exception because of the quality of the article - I see no reason not to do so again this year. If posted, I'd recommended this be considered for ITNR as well. Calidum  17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. I have no problem directing people to it from the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that the PDC Championship is starting to become de facto ITNR as the first blurb of each new year, but a formal discussion to that effect will have to be done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we find a better photo? The resolution is poor. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have opened an ITNR addition discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Igor & Grichka Bogdanoff

 * Comment Brother's nomination is still outstanding at .—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question could they be included in the same space as "Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff"? Or would they have to be separate? In any case, the tags that are there should be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many tags and issues with sources used. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when problems with article are fixed. Important to mention is that "Several friends told them to get themselves vaccinated but they felt because of their lifestyle and their lack of comorbidity, they weren't at risk of Covid." and ""They were both athletic, with not an inch of fat, and they thought the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus.". Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For RD, the articles can be posted when they are in shape, no need to "support when fixed" ;) --Tone 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support their article is fine considering their "storied" career, and with both dying so shortly after another there isnt gonna be another opportunity to post this. jonas (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere near in shape for posting.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have cleared most of the bad source tags. Lots of content in the Bogdanoff Affair section was based solely on poor sources such as Usenet posts and direct links to journal articles, which I have trimmed and replaced where possible. Kafoxe (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as a joint entry. Stephen 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mordechai Ben-Porat

 * Oppose Lines and paragraphs unsourced. This must be fixed before it can be included in the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inadequate sourcing and frankly it's little more than a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: S. H. Sarma

 * Support (as nominator, apparently) An interesting character, decent length, no glaring weaknesses. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well written atricle and has sufficient sources. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment His autobiography is heavily cited. Not sure if there is a concern with independent sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. Far too much primary sourcing to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave this one a cursory read, but, it seems like his autobiography is sourced for non-contentious factual statements. Ktin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. Using primary sources for the odd few things is OK, but when it's approaching 50% of the citations there are concerns about paraphrasing, excessive detail, independence, etc. When the next most used source is somebody else's autobiography I'm also wondering about the reliability overall. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Citizen News of Hong Kong shut down after Stand News' closure

 * Oppose on quality article is short, and being made to look longer by an enormous quote that is a massive recentism. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting the quality issue above, the Stand news is still in the box, so that can be updated to include this, rather than a new blurb. But the article quality needs to be there. --M asem (t) 13:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'm also thinking that, but I can't think of a new blurb. Of course, the article can be expanded from zhwp though.--1233 ( T / C） 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

PM Abdalla Hamdok of Sudan resigns

 * Comment This seems to be a step in the coup, as Hamdok had been detained when the coup started, and this appears to be admission he will not be the leader as the coup continues. --M asem (t) 01:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Possible that an ongoing entry may become appropriate if this event continues to unfold with real and encyclopedic updates. - Indefensible (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that in considering ongoing, there has been very little posted on a day-to-day basis to justify an ongoing topic. This seems like the most recent update in the last 2 weeks, for example. --M asem (t) 01:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant step in this story, being covered internationally. Article is briefly updated and appears adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have a feeling we should delay the blurb in case of new updates. (PenangLion (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Support significant story, which is in the news. Fine to post now, and can update if there are further developments- waiting in case there are more developments seems like WP:SPECULATION to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There is one-sentence update in the article, though it is as factual as it can get. Still feels a bit short. --Tone 16:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a short update, but it is a breaking news story so I'm sure it'll get expanded as more information is known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support significant story and the article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 17:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. Updated portions look quite thin. – Sca (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The coup d'état made him a lame duck Prime Minister. So his resignation is no longer at the level of importance of a blurb. Tradedia talk 04:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert J. Birnbaum

 * Support looks ok. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Efford

 * Long enough (800+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Biittner

 * Support Referenced, good quality depth. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 00:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(RD posted, closed) RD or blurb: Richard Leakey

 * Comment. Would be prepared to support blurb on notability but the article is sadly in need of sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto - he could even be a blurb candidate as top paleoanthropologist, but oppose on quality. Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going through the article and adding citations, hopefully the article will be main page-ready when I'm through.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support if... - Citations are fully complete, and the section regarding his death could be expanded. (PenangLion (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Support - I have updated the article with citations where they were missing. Pinging and  (sorry for the double ping) and  in hopes that you can reconsider your !votes. Thanks,  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have also suggested a couple of blurbs as the first two comments under this nomination suggested that the subject might be notable enough for one. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Richard Leakey is a famous name in anthropology, wild-life conservation, and was a politician in Kenya. His father and mother are household names for their groundbreaking discoveries that effectively changed our narratives on human evolution. I don't see any reason on objecting a blurb for him, as the Leakeys are often used as topics for encyclopaedias. The article is decently covered and cited. My only concern is with the section regarding his death. There's only 5-6 words for it. (PenangLion (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
 * So he should get a blurb because of what his parents did? 331dot (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You are warping my words. If the requirements for Betty White and John Madden's inclusion for a blurb could give so much arguments why not Richard Leakey? (PenangLion (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
 * I'm not warping anything. You cite his parents in explaining why he should have a blurb. Did he have a 90 year groundbreaking career, or expand the reach of his field to millions of viewers? 331dot (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The bar for inclusion is meant to be transformative & top of their field. I can't see how he fit that description. White & Carrie Fisher weren't either & shouldn't have been blurbed. Madden wasn't & he wasn't blurbed. Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * White was transformative in television. We also blurb deaths where the death itself is a story, as with Fischer. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does it say we (should) blurb high-profile deaths of people who otherwise aren't blurb-worthy? If that were the case, we should have blurbed Gabby Petito, whose death received a great deal of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At WP:ITNRD: "Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)". This is why Fischer was posted, she unexpectedly died due to a health problem. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Health problem, AKA natural causes, AKA the lone manner of death excluded by that sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not specifically called out, but not specifically excluded, either. It's in keeping with the spirit of the text. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are four manners. Making a point of specifying only three clearly excludes the other one. Like when a text adventure game says available exits are north, west and east (the road to the south is impassable). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are free to subscribe to that interpretation; I do not. It's easy enough to change "such as" to "such as and limited to" if desired. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not poetry, it's logic. If it wanted to allow for natural mundane deaths, which are almost never newsworthy on their own, it would have stopped after "figure". Take my advice or leave it, but it's not based in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cause of death being the main story is true of cases like Andrei Karlov, not Fisher. The story was famous actress dies. What she died of was only a small aspect of the reporting of her death. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was unexpected and sudden(not "old or sick person dies"). If her death was no big deal, then the media should not have reported on it as they did.  But they did.  In any event, I've already taken this too far off course. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb - article seems improved but not clear what impact the subject had for his field other than finding a few skeletons and promoting conservation, and threshold for blurbing should be higher in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - not close to being important enough for a blurb. Compare his career & article to those of blurb-worthy scientists such as Stephen Hawking & Richard Dawkins. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The bibliography section needs a reference. Otherwise, RD is appropriate. --Tone 09:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. We now know that we originate from Africa thanks to the work of the Leaky family. The old idea was that some Neanderthal offshoot in Europe evolved into modern humans. Count Iblis (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? That would have made Australian Aboriginal people hard to explain. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See here. I guess the idea was that modern humans then later moved to other parts of the World. Count Iblis (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. He was important to his field, but I don't think he was at or even near the top of it, or otherwise had a broad influence on the world. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb article is good enough for RD. But as per above, not ground breaking enough for a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RD posted No current consensus for blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Important to his field, but not so important overall or getting news coverage that would suggest need for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. The sourcing when it was posted was not good. I found three cites to Geni.com and several to other WP:SPSes. A lot of the dubious sources were apparently added recently (judging from the access-date params). We should not be encouraging ITNRD participants to add dubious sources to apparently resolve cn tags. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RD pulled based on added citation tags.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment six of the seven added cn tags have been resolved with sources; one has been removed along with the quote it accompanied as I could not find a source for the direct quote.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * New cites much better, thanks. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RD re-posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Betty White and John Madden were household names for millions around the world, while I doubt the average Joe has ever heard the name "Richard Leakey", no matter how transformative or important his work was to his field. I, for one, had no idea who this man was until I saw this discussion. There are only so many scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, etc. who could be called "household names". People may know about the origin of man thanks to the work of the Leakey family, but they very much likely don't know or have never heard their name. It's a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. 2806:109F:1:16E1:28B6:825:A0DD:7603 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Burgess

 * Comment - needs ref improvement per orange banner before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I have taken care of those issues.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per good work by PCN02WPS; article seems a bit light still on coverage of his career relative to his personal life, but waiving opposition based on notability per consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can we say more about his career? That section is shorter than his farewell letter. Joofjoof (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bio currently limited to mentioning only his employers with little else about his actual career. Lead also fails MOS:INTRO without key highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There has been plenty source material in the last week since his death, with various publications writing about his career (such as in a special TV programme), so I've expanded the article and have hopefully addressed and 's concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent expansions have much improved the coverage. The Intro looks better, too. Obviously, the wikibio is long enough, and there are enough footnotes across the prose. This looks READY for RD to me. Do Joofjoof and Bagumba want to take another look, please? --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2nd look: career section is longer, although the references may need a check: metro.co.uk is a deprecated source, and the Pride of Jersey award is cited to a Facebook post. The "illness and death" section is overly detailed - better to add Burgess' blog as an External Link. Joofjoof (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that the illness section seems too long relative to the career section, granted this is not supposed to be a GA. The full text of his letter seems overkill (WP:MEMORIAL?)—Bagumba (talk)
 * I've removed the quote from the letter, per NOTMEMORIAL. I've also removed the Metro ref - that piece wasn't original Metro journalism but a widely syndicated article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Joofjoof and Bagumba, for re-reviewing. It looks like Curb Safe Charmer has addressed your concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Basti Vaman Shenoy

 * Oppose Terribly written, not especially famous, unsourced chunks, three coatrack sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let’s fix it, shall we? 10:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No deal, I fixed his language's article, slightly. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Comment Friendly reminder notability does not bear on RD, only article quality. That said, nearly the entire article is unsourced.The Kip (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Folks, I am sorry, I might have to let this one slide. I tried working this article, but, a combination of writers block (is that it?) and some real ad-ware infested sites (that consistently slow my computer) means that I just have not been able to work this one. Thanks for all your time. If anyone has cycles to work this article, you will have my gratitude, but, please do not feel compelled to. Ktin (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Parliament of South Africa fire

 * Comment Picture contradicts blurb, update? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? It's the building pictured in references [8] and [10] (at time of posting this). Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No signs of a fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there was one of the building on fire available it would have been used. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Better to use no picture than one at odds with its headline, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * there's an image available now. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Less cognitive dissonance, but way lower resolution. It was never the thing holding me back from voting, though. Still just watching, thanks for the progression. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be disrespectful to anyone, but Betty White is alive in the photo that is currently on the Main Page. What I mean is that just because "the photo doesn't show the building on fire" doesn't mean that it is better to not have a photo. Tube·of·Light 13:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In still photos, the difference between an old person and a recently dead person is slighter than between something severely damaged by fire (not necessarily on fire) and something idyllic. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think everyone would understand it must be a stock photo. More informative to add least tell what it looks like (I didn't know, I know what CAN, AUS, UK, US and a few other parliaments looks like but not South Africa) if you don't have a non-copyvio after photo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- when we verify that the fire is as major as it appears, I would more fully support posting this. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC) -- now I fully support it once sufficient coverage is posted on wiki. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support significant event, I mean a (from the looks of it) intense fire at a country's parliamentary building is a rare and notable event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No indication of significance of fire in the article update currently. Also referencing issues in the general article.—Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fairly widely covered on a slow post-holiday Sunday, but details remain sketchy, with no fatalities reported yet. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the BBC article points out this was the second fire in a year at the buildings. And while part of the building is 100+ years old, this doesn't seem to have a landmark status like the Notre Dame fire from a few years back. Add no injuries and this is a typical fire. --M asem  (t) 14:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the university library what got it in April. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "It is the second fire at the parliament in under a year. In March there was a fire caused by an electrical fault." from the BBC article. --M asem (t) 14:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw that, too, trout me! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it happened in UK, there'd be a rush for peerages. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Topic does not have its own article and is limited to a single paragraph in the bolded article. That's not even close to adequate coverage for an ITN blurb. We rarely post events that don't have their own page and the coverage in the linked article would be considered a micro-stub if it were its own article. Am open to reconsidering once the event has a standalone article of sufficient length. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it has one line in an article- this is not sufficient to show that it's an ITN-worthy event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - poor quality target article, from what I can tell. Kafoxe (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article gives no indication of there having been any casualties. We shouldn't post a fire just because it happened at an important building. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We did post the causality-lacking Notre Dame fire, but I think it should be clear the difference between the nature of these events. --M asem (t) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose,There is not enough information of the incident, it has not an article. Alex-h (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle successful arson attacks on a national legislature seem inherently notable to me. Article isn't ready yet, but it could get there.  This incident probably deserves its own article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They've arrest a person of interest but whether it was for arson or not, we don't know. So let's not jump the gun with a non-neutral stance yet. --M asem (t) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article may be short, but in a few words it explains the situation as clearly as is possible at this stage of the investigation. The article is well-cited, and meets the other quality requirements for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability / Wait per NorthernFalcon. A quality target article is needed. A quick search for "south africa" produces loads of secondary sources from reputable outlets that could be used to write a quality article, but we'll have to see if one can be written up while it's still in the news. Maybe it'd be best to revisit this conversation if/when the topic is covered adequately on the encyclopedia so the discussion won't be cluttered by "oppose for now" !votes? <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> 💙 20:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability grounds as probable arson attack on national parliament building, but the target article needs sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Monday coverage includes pending criminal charges against suspect, details of damage.  – Sca (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now a dedicated page, 2022 Parliament of South Africa fire, though it is still a stub. If notable, that seems like the route to go to avoid WP:UNDUE coverage in the main parliabment page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think this is notable enough for ITN (if a fire broke out at the U.S. Capitol building, of course we'd post that), the problem is that there's not enough information on Wikipedia at the moment. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle That arson is suspected is a big point here. I think a regular fire falls just short notability wise, but given the belief that it was done intentionally (forget whether or not it is proven, unless we are of the mindset that an indictment of an individual for arson would be an auto-post) I think this is a worthy story. That said, the article does seem a bit short and disorganized at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now there's a dedicated article which is short but well referenced. A suspect has been charged with arson, which I agree makes it more notable than an accidental fire would have been. There is an official report on the fire due on Friday, which will hopefully help with expanding the article further. the wub "?!"  13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've updated the section header and the bolding in the blurb. The ITN candidate is now "2022 Parliament of South Africa fire". --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As there is an article about it now, and as arson against a nation's government is quite noteworthy, it is now worthy of ITN. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will point out that it has still not yet been absolutely ruled arson. --M asem (t) 05:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, neither of the blurbs indicate that it was definitely arson. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Freed

 * Weak support Would like to see more depth of coverage (e.g. what he did in leadership roles) but what's there meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 05:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is long enough and have enough footnotes. It's READY for RD. It would be nice if there is more to read about what he did as a "music program annotator". --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dan Reeves

 * Ready, I think. Lmk if we missed anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well hot damn...that's some good work! Article looks good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Multi-paragraph sections, clear photograph, no glaring style or sourcing errors; easily the best article from Deaths in 2022, should set the new standard of quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RCEP comes into effect for ten countries

 * Oppose As this has already been posted and this is a long-term work-in-progress, it doesn't seem that this milestone is making enough waves to be worth posting again . For example, the WSJ says "So far 10 of the 15 member nations have formally ratified the agreement ..." and so there are still plenty of formalities remaining.  And the actual impact on regional and global trade remains to be seen. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When was this previously posted? This is separate from the one mentioned in the nominator's comment, and that should be precedent for this even more significant agreement. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa but the names of these things seem easy to confuse. Reminds me of something.  Anyway, it's still not making much impact in the news right now.  Looking for coverage in mainstream media like the BBC, I find What is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)? and The meaning of RCEP, the world’s biggest trade agreement.  But those items were published in November and so it's arguably stale.  The matter seems analogous to Brexit, which dragged on interminably and still isn't fully resolved.  I could be persuaded that this is the time to highlight it as we might otherwise never do so but would want to see more heavyweight coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should also consider the state of the article. This was created in 2013 as there have been negotiations since 2011.  It seems to be remarkably well cited and so the quality seems acceptable.  But it's the sort of topic that might be prone to PR spin or commercial/nationalist bias.  We should consult some of the editors who have been doing the work: Normchou and Khestwol, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what Andrew said. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm from one of those countries. I pay attention to theses sorts of things, and I've never heard of this one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, here's coverage in one country.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this should be included for encyclopedic coverage and (being the largest free trade bloc in history) is far more significant than a number of the other current blurbs; article seems in decent shape per the guidelines for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Encyclopedic, article looks well sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been posted before. No need to post it again. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous nom for this was not posted, the article mentioned above is for a different case which should be considered as precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If indeed this has been posted before than this is an easy oppose, but the article itself notes that the elimination of tariffs will be done over a period of 20 years, which seems a little glacial for being worth posting. It's probably less of a valid argument, but the fact that actual impacts have been called into question and that not all tariffs are being eliminated (calling into question the supposedly true "free trade" part of the agreement) suggests this could not be as monumental as billed. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It has not been posted before, and been the largest free trade area in the world deserves the inclusion. Article in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets one of WP:ITNCRIT's objectives of showcasing timely, quality articles. Precedent with post of aforementioned agreement by nom, and added diversity of mostly non-English-speaking nations.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds of quality. The article might be long, but has almost nothing on the content of the agreement or on how it was negotiated. 95.91.246.26 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Inquiry I'm too ill-informed to !vote on this one, but I'd like to know more about the rationale of some of the oppose !votes. For those who oppose on the grounds that it has only come into effect for 10 of the countries and its effects are not yet known, would you support blurbing once all countries sign onto it, or would it be too stale by then? To my understanding, the story here is that this is now the largest trading bloc in the world. Side note, I ask that those who stated "This has been posted before" strike their comments. This is untrue. <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> 💙 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting but doesn’t meet the blurb bar for me at this point. Tradedia talk 14:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe it will be newsworthy when every participant of the trade pact executes the deal. But there are also many reasons why it won't be newsworthy even then. Normchou   💬 19:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)