Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2023

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

(Posted) RD: Lalitha Chandran

 * Comment. Edits done. Please have a look. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Angel Alcala

 * Support well-cited. Tails   Wx  05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Multiple unsourced statements in the article.  Spencer T• C 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Durenberger

 * Support Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shanti Bhushan ‎

 * Not yet ready A few CN templates. Date/place of birth is uncited, and entire early/non-political life are missing. The prose in political career is bare, but ok enough for our purposes. Prose in the activism section is fine, except for the 2010 contempt charge which needs updating. Curbon7 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any update? The article is fairly close to being post-able so it'd be a shame if it rolled off. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Beathard

 * Almost I think this article is quite close. I don't know much about football, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the general manager is a fairly minor role compared to the same position in baseball, right? If so, I don't think too much more expansion is needed, as I do note that the article already names some prominent players he scouted. Just a few sentences of what he did while the scout/manager of the Dolphins, Falcons, and Chargers (particularly the latter) should suffice. Some spots also need sources. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , Any update? Curbon7 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got the referencing issue cleared up, but I just don't have the time currently to expand this... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Silverstein

 * Comment: Works section needs refs/ISBNs.  Spencer T• C 05:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now cited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Will Steffen

 * Support Short but adequate and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Cindy Williams

 * :Support once Filmography section is properly sourced. Mooonswimmer 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing, mostly around the tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready tag at the top of article, needs some sourcing.  Tails   Wx  05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Source issues still present. Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Adams (drummer)

 * Comment Well-cited, but there are significant prose issues . Will give a full breakdown in a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want this to seem over-scrupulous, as we of course don't need the articles to be great or even necessarily good for RD; however, they have to meet a basic threshold of quality. The article is mostly fine for holisticity (wish there was a bit more to his non-superfan life, but it's understandable that sources may not cover this) and sourcing (his date of birth and education are uncited ; these are more pressing, as you'll know we can't have uncited material on the main page).
 * The main issue here is the prose. This is far from the (very basic) level of quality we expect and needs to either go through WP:GAR to be delisted or needs a ground-up rewrite. To say the article's tone is very informal is an understatement; the entire thing reads like an article on baseball.wikia. That is to say, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a fan write-up, chock with inside baseball (""??), weasel words, and general poor phrasing. It is hard to explain because there's not necessarily one specific thing wrong that I can point to, it's kind of just the entire article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 I have been going through the article and making some edits along the same lines. I think the problem here is that the information in an article is going to be shaped by the information available in the sources, and generally speaking it's going to be Cleveland publications writing about him with a very casual tone. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of my concerns have been addressed, and the article is much better now! Just waiting for a source on the DoB. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've swapped out the DoB with his birth year based on age at death (DoB is commented out so it is still available if a source is found). Curbon7 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found a source for his birth date and added it back in.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (provided date of birth is correctly cited or removed) – I think the quality of the prose is perfectly fine for a front-page feature like this. It goes into details that other encyclopedic articles are unlikely to contain, and therefore can feel informal or odd, but I think it is acceptable at worst and charming at best. Article is well-cited and beautifully detailed, including his personal life (I'm not sure what else Curbon would want from that section (it lists school, marriage, occupation, volunteer work, and health issues). I think this is a lovely feature! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has Good Article status. Have we reached the point of arguing about quality for publishing a Good Article to RD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles have to meet WP:ITNQUALITY, even if they're Good Articles, as you'll know GAs can diminish in quality over time. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , this article was promoted to GA in 2012. Alot of bad writing can happen in 11 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 11 years?! No, no, 2012 was last year, right? :( -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone has updated the article after his death to replace Indians with Guardians in many places. I understand the intent, but it is now factually wrong in many places due to the time frame in which he was active.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this.  Spencer T• C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Hull

 * Support: p  b  p  20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready As stated by the nom, the article is still heavily under-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Peshawar mosque bombing

 * Not ready – Love an article where 80% of the length is a navigation template. This stub needs a lot of work to become suitable for the frontpage. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has been updated and is well referenced. I think it's already fit for ITN. It will continue to be updated as new information arrives. Very sad news. :( MSN12102001 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There's a "failed verification" tag that needs fixing, and the article could stand for more expansion.  -- Jayron 32 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready, definitely significant. Proposing altblurb -Azpineapple (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per @Azpineapple Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is definitely not ready yet, with all of its one-sentence paragraphs, but with how the death count is spiking up I'm fairly certain it will be posted soon. Very big tragedy.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - about 2k characters of cited prose is long enough for DYK, and it's also long enough to meet the quality requirements of ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb is better. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Notability is obvious, given 40+ deaths. I've also expanded the article and I think it's now good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because the article is good enough & the death toll is very high. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is good, and a lot of deaths. The death count makes it notable.  TomMasterReal  TALK 16:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. First blurb is not grammatical. Notable for sure, article quality is good as is. There are a couple things on the article that need citations, but the article is being actively edited so I assume these will be fixed by the time of posting. e.b. (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Question: Do reliable sources provide any indication that this is having national or regional consequences? Has this affected the political climate in Pakistan in any way? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb The Kip (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Went with a variation on the altblurb. "Suicide blast" sounds sensational and a bit weird.  Changed it to the terminology 'in the article' and said "suicide bombing".  -- Jayron 32 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gero Storjohann

 * Support Well-cited, and more-or-less holistic enough for our purposes. A minor point of issue is that Kreisvorsitzender is not defined or linked, but this one point isn't that big a deal in the big picture. Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please help. It's not linked in German. "Vorsitzender" would literally be president, and "Kreis" means districts. Wiktionary has Kreisverband for the district level of some organisations, here the CDU party. Is there anything comparable in English, and if, should that be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've parenthesized the word in Deutsch and preceded it with "district president"; this can hypothetically be reversed (parenthesize the English word) if you want. Excellent work as usual Curbon7 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Handball Men's World Cup

 * Oppose Basically a table farm with very little prose. Not really main page ready.  -- Jayron 32 13:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality It's ITNR, but the article is almost entirely tables. The Kip (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Unfortunately there is no prose on the games whatsoever, not even a description of the final. There needs to be at least a few paragraphs describing what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Three days later, there has been no progress with the article. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on qualityParadise Chronicle (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Masood Sharif Khan Khattak

 * Not yet ready A number of CN tags. The other sources need to be spot-checked as well, as I have low confidence in them. Too many section headers, need to be condensed down. Article is almost holistic; expansion is needed on his 1996 imprisonment and his career between 1999 and 2009. If available, details on his army career from 1978 to 1986 and his life from 2009 until his death is desirable, but not necessary, as I understand sources may not cover those details. Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barrett Strong

 * Oppose Not yet ready – the discography section is tagged for clean up and also needs more references.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on the article and added citations. Please take a few minutes to review again. — Matthew  - (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job! Happy to support now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as improved. BD2412  T 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and holistic. Excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's Rock / Do The Very Best You Can InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging recently active administrators so that this doesn't get lost in the shuffle. — Matthew   / (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup

 * Oppose It's not an ITNR so the article should be of high quality, but there's very little prose involved including what is needed for championship finales. --M asem (t) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both notability and quality. Not on ITNR, doesn't seem to be excessively popular, and most importantly the article is almost entirely tables with little to no prose. The Kip (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Just because it's not on ITNR doesn't mean it can't be posted, and as the top event in field hockey, it has at least a claim to significance. That said, as stated above, the entire article is composed almost entirely of tables with little in the way of prose. Curbon7 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For above reasons. Needs significant expansion to be on the front page. e.b. (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. There's no point in even discussing the significance when the article has no prose on the games. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Three days later, only two sentences have been added - about the official song. Still not ready. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea of a film composer scoring a hockey anthem is rather outrageous, though...perhaps even novel. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on qualitya well expanded table farm. But prose there is not much.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hazel McCallion

 * Support - Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article looks like it should be ready for posting. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A few tagged references needed. Stephen 23:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is now fully cited, but some bare URLs need a template. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Iran drone attacks

 * Wait "A blast recorded in defence ministry which caused minor damage" isn't the clearest English sentence, but it certainly sounds like the opposite of major news to me. The blowback could be huge, especially if bolstered by a video. But you never know how people will react to provocation, the supposed battle to come could also just be one of words. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is a major news because this attack can start a war between two countries. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be just two, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. The Kip (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The impact of the attack, and its consequences, are yet to be seen. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Already CNN, Fox and Al Arabiya can't agree on which words from IRNA's tweet to replace with which of whose choosing. Are they drones or "small drones"? Them or "the drones"? One was hit by or "struck"? Props to UPI for the relative straight dope, just omitting parts, nice and objective-like. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - Rumours are flying; solid news is still scarce. It currently seems like both Western world media and Iran want to hohum this. Without solid sources, WP is not going to override that. There doesn't seem to be any article on this in fa.Wikipedia - at least according to Wikidata. Boud (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Israel did it, it's being reported. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait a few days to see if more information is made available, but definite support if further reporting increases in confidence that it's an intentional attack by another country. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait we do not know the death amount, and damage these drones have done.  TomMasterReal  TALK 23:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No dead, no wounded. Both "sides" agree on that. Damage is more subjective, quantitative not qualitative, and making things seem better and worse than they are is inherent in political news...or entertainment news...human interests, overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for want of actual damage. Also, little reporting internationally on this (since, apparently, that's now a criteria). -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support an event of this nature ought to be postable, but news coverage of it appears to be dying down. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose How is a drone attack ITN-worthy? Evan224 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are numerous circumstances in which a drone attack could be ITN-worthy. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Australian Open

 * Note Prose summaries are needed for the singles finals in the main Open article. Joofjoof (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks prose for the matches (Hopefull fares better than last year's).—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded. Individual events need prose descriptions. See the 2021 event for a model. With this win, Djokovic is now tied for the most men's Grand Slam titles and holds the record for most individual titles at the Australian Open (10), perhaps these records could be worked into a blurb? e.b. (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready. Neither the main tournament article, nor those on the men's and women's singles, has a prose summary of the events. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius</b> talk 17:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article still has not been prose-ified. Curbon7 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * CommentIf that doesn't make it to ITN I don't know either. One should not only nominate but also work on the article either before or after nominating it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Melitta Muszely

 * I added that detail now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amru Daulay

 * Support Appears to be acceptable length and adequately sourced. A lot of the references are in Indonesian but I'm going to AGF here and assume they are reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and holistic. The last sentence ("Prior to his death, Amru had suffered stroke for four years") needs to be re-jigged though. Curbon7 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. any chance you could add links to the article elsewhere to other relevant article(s) on Wikipedia? It appears that it only appears in Deaths in 2023 and Portal:Indonesia from what I can tell.  Spencer T• C 05:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisa Loring

 * Support looks fine. MyriadSims (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Phil Coles

 * Not yet ready Article is well-cited, but is quite short of being considered holistic and is hardly updated to reflect his death. If available, details should be added about his life before becoming an Olympian, his competition in the 1960 and 1968 Olympics, and his life after 2002. A primary example is the quote: "He was key to getting an Australian Olympic team to the Olympic Games Moscow 1980 against all requests for a boycott"; this is a key biographical detail that is not mentioned at all in the prose besides that condolence. The article also makes no mention of his death besides one paragraph of condolences (but again does not explicitly say he died on such and such date in such and such place); as such, I don't think it meets the updated requirement. The article doesn't obviously need to be GA-level, but it can't be a glorified stub either. Curbon7 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To shorten: brief details should be added about the '60 and '68 Olympics; his role in the 1980 Olympics needs to be included; his death needs to be included. These 3 points should be fairly easily achievable. Curbon7 (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tom Verlaine

 * Not yet ready Much better than when nominated, but still missing a significant number of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Czech presidential election

 * Not ready as article needs to be updated. Added ITN/R label. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I just looked at ITN/R and I'm not very sure now whether or not this qualifies as ITN/R, so I'll remove the label. I'll still support on notability even if not ITN/R, but the article is not yet ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This definitely counts as ITN/R, I've updated the template. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Bestagon check now, it's still 99.99% reporting (there's always a few problem wards that take forever) but the main figures (58-42 and turnout over 70) are staying where they are and are already being reported in RS. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that the article has been updated enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - both election and bio articles look good to me as of now. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A presidential election by a popular vote should certainly count as ITN/R, even for countries where the president holds limited power. If our ITN/R guidelines say something else, they should be changed/clarified. In any case, support this item on notability. Both bolded articles appear to be in sufficiently good shape for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support This is a decently significant election, and it probably should qualify for being a successful candidate. However, it should be noted how few powers the Czech president really has, the impact on the country because of this election is likely to be minimal. Also, I believe the alternative blurb would be better to be used. Quinby  ( talk ) 18:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changes in head of state are WP:ITNR, so it doesn't matter if you personally consider it significant or not. Curbon7 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No they are not. Read the criteria again. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * President of Czech Republic is the head of state and thus does administer the executive office of the state, plus he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, another executive position. Heads of state are ITNR. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But he does not administer the executive; the head of government does. The monarch in the UK is the head of state; but he is not a member of the executive and does not administer it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note for admins (cc @Tone), the file in the suggestion has questions surrounding its potential copyright. I'd suggest File:Gen. Petr Pavel (2018) (cropped).jpg should be used instead, as is on the 2023 election page. Quinby  ( talk ) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I was looking for this on the front page.--2601:C4:C300:A210:7836:446C:8BFA:F5CE (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose -- This is not ITN/R, as the President of the Czech Republic is not the head of government. ITN/R says: "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive". The President of the Czech Republic does not administer the executive, the Prime Minister does. Switching from ITN/R yes to no. I do however see discussion of this in the news, and the fact that he was a former general means there is something more notable here than "new President". -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Elections of the Heads of State like the Czech president are not ITNR. This doesn't prevent it from being included in ITN, it wouldn't be the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the last two Czech presidential elections in 2013 and 2018 were both tagged as ITN/R. Has there been a recent discussion which changed this? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion in 2021 that defined which kinds of transitions are ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there was a more long drawn out discussion than that one but I'm too lazy to look for it. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The President in Czechia is far more powerful than ceremonial leaders you see in many parliamentary democracies, even holding veto powers similar to the USA. This is a major change - I see no reason to not post this, especially given the international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is almost ready, I'd just like to see some more about reactions, then I can post. --Tone 21:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just added a paragraph about domestic reactions to that section – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Supporty worty - Per the above statements PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb looks nice PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously Both articles are in good shape and seems like a significant election which has European-wide consequences (mostly on the Babis aspect). Curbon7 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Internationally covered. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support In a normal living or dead person's article, an unsourced paragraph revolving around a claim like In January 1993, his unit was sent to evacuate a French military base, where French soldiers were under siege by Serbian troops would be unacceptable, but this is an elected politician we're talking about here, the sort of person who doesn't even need to meet GNG. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI the citations for that part are at the end of the next paragraph – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Better than nowhere. Thanks for finding them. Still, you wouldn't see Sylvia Syms or Tom Verlaine get off so easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. I am bolding just the election article, some paragraphs in Pavel's article could do with source improvement. --Tone 08:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that this pic is much better, as the posted one is somewhat dim. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like how the current one doesn't have a gigantic and irrelevant NATO logo in it. Not knocking NATO, but the Czech people have very little people power there. This guy here (who looks bright enough to me) is the guy they more or less chose to lead the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pavel was Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 2015 to 2018, so he had a connection to NATO. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's a fine picture for his article, just irrelevant to this election. He probably wasn't elected in the currently pictured shirt, either, but that draws way less attention to itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb: Tyre Nichols and ensuing unrest

 * Comment Regardless of whether or not this meets the significance threshold (which I would assume it does), all three bolded articles have pretty fundamental issues when it comes to sourcing, holisticity, and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. Curbon7 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that there is an ongoing discussion about merging the first two targets. This should be resolved before posting, assuming that consensus develops that the item is notable for IT. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Caution I'm not a BLPCRIME extremist, and there is nothing wrong with noting the charges against high-profile murder suspects. But you can't say they killed him yet, as the current blurb does. Not allowed, anyway, it's prejudicial. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed per WP:BLPCRIME Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now it's inaccurate, since he died a few days later, but it's better as far as I'm concerned. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as currently written. There don't appear to have been 'riots' - our own article says one protestor, at one protest, was arrested for jumping on and damaging a police car. The editorial bias involved in regarding that as 'riots' is pretty stark. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose again. Police abuse in the US is routine and this is not a local newspaper. Not serious riots with international interest/impact. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage this is getting is way beyond "local newspaper", or we wouldn't be here. And "international impact" has never been an ITN criteria. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So were the protests in Northern Ireland, but we posted those. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the standard of global significance that seems to be demanded for ITN these days. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:D111:9D08:A092:825C (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not out here demanding global significance. National news can be well worth including. But this is a developing story, and the current framing (not to mention the premature fork into three articles) is unhelpful. I think we need to wait and see for a bit. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Opposed - Purely internal US matter, and no evidence of outsized or extraordinary impact or consequence. Not notable for the vast majority of English speakers. If ITN started featuring US police abuse, it'd be able to feature nothing else.  Mel ma nn   11:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We started a few years ago, and didn't go that nuts with it, still mostly crazy about elections and reelections. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think 'purely internal matter' is a knock-down argument in cases like this. An internal matter can be worthy of ITN if it's big enough. But I don't think this is, yet, and attempts to talk it up with words like 'riot' are counter-productive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "only affects one country" argument has been essentially deprecated because of how poor it is. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we PLEASE STOP using arguments like "this is an internal matter"? What part of the admonishment in the rules above that say "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive" are people failing to read? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - This is only Day 1. If this turns out to cause widespread unrest like in 2020, this could be posted. Wait to see where this goes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral but this whole demand for global significance is silly. Nothing in ITN requires that an item be globally significant to be posted. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think many tend to immediately discount US stories as a sort of "counter culture" to how American-centric the internet can be at times, but the USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per PrecariousWorlds, but I don't think that opposing for the lack of global significance is valid. In fact, a lot of WP:ITN/R items lack any global significance, but are still considered perfectly notable. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Nothing yet of the scale of the George Floyd protests, in terms of both scale and violence levels. Could escalate but premature to do that now. --M asem (t) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - top international news for the third straight day. Nationwide protests last night. More protests planned tonight. ITN stale. There are so many nominations we could be posting right now, but nah, let's just update once a month because "global significance". Levivich (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Top? Where? _-_Alsor (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, are three I just checked. Yesterday I posted stories from those three that were the top then. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still in BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, and all US news, for the fourth straight day. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless it escalates into a George Floyd level movement or if riots take place. There are more significant examples of ongoing civil unrest in Bangladesh, Ghana, Haiti, Lebanon, Spain, Sudan, and Tunisia, among others. The Tyre Nichols unrest is very minor overall, certainly not significant enough for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Expecting 'George Floyd level' protests should not be really a criteria here. -- M h hossein   talk 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - world-wide news, and this nonsense about international impact is just that, nonsense. We have a an entrenched contingent at ITN that refuses to allow what is widely covered world-wide to appear because it happened in the United States. What pray tell was the international impact of 2022 St Helier explosion. But things that are widely covered across the world, proving the lie in the claim that there is no international interest, cannot be included for reasons that the guidelines to this page expressly say are not valid. Please do not item 2: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. These opposes should be tossed out wholesale, and this place needs an overhaul to actually include what is provably widely covered material on the front pages of news sources around the world. Front page of Reuters, BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, Al-Jazeera (Arabic). It is bs that a set of users have effectively claimed ITN as a member of the EU. It doesnt have to matter to you if this is in the news. It is however in the news, it is widely covered, around the world, and it should be posted here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics, and not just a US/UK news ticker, which is what happens if you want to follow only the breadth of coverage of a topic as you suggest. That's why we repeat that we are not a news ticker and not simply a mirror of what happens on the front pages of major papers. If you want to work in that space, that's what Wikinews is for, not an encyclopedia. M asem (t) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That has not been true no matter how many times you have repeated it without basis. Wikipedia is not a news ticker. In the news is literally about directing our readers to topics they have seen, wait for it, in the news. If you dont want to cover things in the news then go help out at DYK, or at FAC, or on this day. This however remains the portion of the main page meant to help our readers find our coverage on the things that are widely covered, once again all together now, in the news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what ITN says, it is to show quality articles on topics that happen to be in the news. Being in the news is a necessary but not sufficient element prior to posting. We are still selective because this is the front page of an encyclopedia and we need to strive to avoid the media's systematic bias against most topics that are not directly US or UK related. We want a broad selection of topics, not the narrow selection that "following the news headlines" would generate. It should also be obvious that not every major world trending news headline is the basis for a WP article. All that is that ITN is tuned to capturing encyclopedia topics, not following the news. M asem (t) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Topics are encyclopedia topics by virtue of having an encyclopedia article about them. If you feel they are not encyclopedic then you should be arguing for their deletion. Is anybody seriously arguing this is not an encyclopedic topic? But we must not be reading the same page. WP:ITN says its purpose is to: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. And despite your admonishment that I should instead look to Wikinews, what it actually says about that is Unlike Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and does not accept original works of journalism or first-hand reports. However, many Wikipedians are motivated to create and update encyclopedic articles of timely interest. ITN originated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when entries were created and put on the Main Page within minutes of the attacks. The entries led to an infusion of interest by editors in creating a Main Page section that linked to articles providing readers the context behind the news This is not about producing original works of journalism, it is about directing our readers to our encyclopedia articles about topics they are likely to be searching for because they are in the news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But we are still talking encyclopedic articles, not topics that the news media feel is important. We're talking content featured on the main page, so it should represent some of out best quality encyclopedic content. And unless we work against media systematic bias, we will end up never featuring topics that are good quality articles outside the English-speaking world while focusing too much on relatively common and repeating events that the news media love to focus on. M asem (t) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If your standard is that we are not a UK news ticker... then why did we post so much internal UK news last year? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Youre confusing factions here. Masem isnt one of the editors who reflexively supports anything UK related and opposes anything US related. He does however have these very longstanding and, in my opinion, very wrong ideas on some things related to what the standard for inclusion here should be, which as best as I can tell is either being ITNR or having some wide-ranging impact on several countries, and some other quirks related to his reading of BLP and DUE, but you are barking up the wrong tree with that question to him. But there are editors here who would have voted against including the assassination of MLK here as racist violence against Black people is common in America, and this one man did not have any world-wide impact, so include in RD, but when the riots start potentially blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And how many times did we post last year about news in the USA? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, theres one. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not as often as we posted about news in the UK, actually. We even posted about the riots in Northern Ireland last year, and the fact that Sinn Féin won in the Northern Ireland parliament; even though Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state, and the riots were insignificant. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that domestic politics often have international implications due to the fact that the US is the world's sole superpower, but at the same time, there are domestic events that happen in the US that while important, don't warrant a blurb. Great example: the 2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election saw Ron DeSantis win in a landslide; while his victory annoyed and upset me greatly (since I live in Florida) and has important implications at both the state and national levels (Ron DeSantis is probably going to try to run in 2024), the event is not worthy of ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the "global impact" arguments are invalid, we should still wait as the level of the protests so far is nowhere near to the George Floyd protests, for example. (Note that GF should not be the standard for protests, but there has not been any of the unrest or chaos that would make these protests more "postable". Until then, they're just another protest movement.) The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you realize the GF protests were the largest and longest lasting BLM protests in history? Why does that have to reach that level to be ITN? Why is multi-day international coverage and nationwide protests not enough, it also has to be record-breaking? Levivich (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally said that GF should not be the standard. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet you also said it's nowhere near, and that it's just another protest movement unless there is unrest and chaos. Think about what you're saying: nationwide BLM protests receiving international coverage is not news unless there is violence? White man gets elected: instant ITN. White guy plays bar games (snooker, darts): automatic ITN for a week. But people of color protest? Nah, it's gotta be violent or it's not news. Woman PM resigns? Not news. White man replaces her? Put his picture up for a week! This is systemic bias, again. Thinking BLM protests aren't newsworthy unless they're riots is systemic bias. At ITN. Again. And it's not just you, look at the oppose vote just above: oppose unless there's riots or it's the level of George Floyd. This is sheer bias, it's not logic, it's not the application of our global consensus, it doesn't advance the underlying purpose of ITN, it's just plain bias. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was wrong in making the comparison with GF was wrong, and in fact almost my entire above comment was a catastrophe, so I'll just strike it. However, I never intended to say that BLM protests aren't newsworthy in their own right - this applies to all protests, even if they are thousands strong. Otherwise, the ITN section would feature nothing else. Let the story develop, and if the protests persist, then we can post. And by the way, I'm not white, not American, not European. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted Jacinda Adern's resignation, and Brahim Ghali being re-elected. We don't only nominate "white men". This conversation is thoroughly unproductive PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Levivich's point is valid; Jacinda Ardern's resignation was only posted once Chris Hipkins was identified as the successor, despite a significant number of calls to post sooner rather than later, and Chris Hipkins both received first mention and the picture in the blurb. Not a good look if we're trying to avoid a sexism bias. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, I got the chronology wrong. Still, I don't think it was because of a sexist bias PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was a woman that succeeded Adern, we would've posted it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Brahim Ghali's picture was on ITN for almost two days. Which is a record for ITN having a picture of someone other than a white man in January 2023: Pope Benedict XVI Jan 1-6, then darts champion Michael Smith Jan 6-10, Brazilian Congress damage Jan 10-15, airplane Jan 15-20, NZ PM Chris Hipkins Jan 20-27, Sahrawi president Brahim Ghali Jan 27-29, Czech president Petr Pavel Jan 29-30. Please, check my math:
 * 30 days in January (so far), of which
 * 20 days of which had a picture of a person, of which
 * 18 days it was a white guy, and
 * 2 days a non-white guy
 * This is what systemic bias looks like. More in my next reply below. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ghali may not be the most Anglo-Saxon Protestant man out there, but if he's not white (by your foolish American standards), I don't know who is. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, what stories do you think should've been posted instead of these? Was the Pope, the leader of a religion with more than 1.3 billion followers, dying not notable? Is the Darts Championship not in ITN/R? Rioters storming a national congress? 68 people killed in an aircraft crash?
 * What nomination do you think was snubbed? Are these not all notable events? Please tell us which story In The News we missed over this period.PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @PrecariousWorlds: Great question. For some examples, see the list at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different discussion, about whether or not ITN should even exist in its current state. Also, almost every one of those articles was listed under RD.
 * My point is this: What stories do you think were snubbed over the last month because of some systemic bias? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ones that were on that list I linked to that were nom'd but not posted, for starters: Damar Hamlin, college football championship, the 2023 US Speaker of the House election was nom'd three times, twice in January (1, 2) (that's anti-American bias, systemic at ITN). And don't forget the big one, Jacinda Adern's resignation not being posted until her successor was chosen. In addition to those, we could have and should have posted: US and Philippine airspace closures, Australian helicopter crash, Artsakh blockade (nom'd multiple times), Senegal bus crash, Mursal Nabizada's assassination was admittedly a bit short, Solomon Pena, Monterey Park, Half Moon Bay, should have been posted by now although that one is probably not due to systemic bias but simply personal idiocy (waiting until after the comet is viewable to post it), as should, , , and, of course, Tyre Nichols. Hope that answers your question. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I actually agree with many of the nominations you cited(most of all the Speaker of the House election), and I will concede there's a little bit of Anti-Americanism in ITN, but I do believe this is done in good faith to try and balance the stories we post from just being a US Domestic politics news ticker.
 * I think we're having a discussion here on whether or not nominations need global significance to be posted, and I would agree with you that we should post more local stories. My own personal opinion is that we should post what is, quite literally, In The News. But, a lot of the nominations you mentioned weren't quite notable or of quality to be posted to the front page of the sixth largest website in the world.
 * Damar Hamlin wasn't posted because A. We aren't a celebrity news ticker, and B. The nomination in question made it sound like he already died, when it wasn't the case. The US and Philippine closures were small, one-day long events that did not have wide reaching significance, and by the time the story was voted on and the article expanded, everyone had already moved on. The Australian helicopter crash, while a tragedy, did not meet our (somewhat morbid and odd) death criterias for posting. Based off of precedent, we only post tragic loss of life if they are of significant scale, if we were to post every awful loss of life, it would flood ITN. Comet C/2022 E3 is probably going to be posted in the next few days as the comet makes its closest approach. The Afghanistan cold wave was not of sufficient quality (And I'll add I nominated this story), one small group in Russia being dissolved didn't meet notability criteria, and was already sort of covered by the ongoing crisis in Russia and Ukraine. In regards to Jacinda Ardern, we still would've posted her successor if she was a woman, and I would also bring up we posted Jacinda Ardern being elected. And finally, the Jenin and Jerusalem violence is literally ready to be posted.
 * I can see your point about Anti-Americanism(which I attribute to a push back against the American-centric Internet) but generally I have not seen evidence of a widespread bias against women or minorities in the stories we post, and for the most part, I believe people are acting in Good Faith, and acknowledge that this is a divisive nomination and there are many arguments for and against that people have put better than I could, which don't come down to Bad Faith or plain bias. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As for this story, I change my vote to Oppose - Per Masem's excellent reply below. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can not understand why in particular the images section of ITN draws so much ire. It should be the last thing we are concerned with, yet some people seem to want to make it their singular object of ire. The seemed suggestion that we are being biased against events involving minorities and women using an arbitrary timeframe where it just so happened that none were shown in a picture was absurd, whether the bias be "systemic" or not. In fact, it's probable that NONE of the blurbs that you noted would have been accompanied by such images as well, and either way the lack of such shouldn't be an indication of bias. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have posted it if Arden had been succeeded by a woman? Or that we we'll stop posting an ITN/R if a Black person wins a sporting event? Or maybe that we'll support posting a few hundred people protesting something if they're white? Not only are you casting WP:ASPERSIONs, but you're casting them in a way that's not even plausible. If you continue to accuse me of opposing on the basis of race, then I fully intend to open an ANI thread. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: Neither I nor anyone else is accusing you or anyone else of opposing on the basis of race. Systemic bias is a result, not an intent. My fuller comments about Arden are in the thread about her; ITN didn't think her resignation was worthy of posting, but her successor was worthy of posting. Similarly, five police officers being charged with murdering an unarmed black man is not deemed worthy unless it leads to a movement or riots, in your words. It's not that you are opposing on the basis of race; you are clearly opposing on the basis of your personal opinion about what is important and what is not important. You are not basing your !vote on what reliable sources are writing (which is what you should be basing your vote on, see Snow Rise's excellent explanation below). Because you and others are !voting based on personal opinion and not based on reliable sources, the result is things like, what I posted above, that this month we had a picture of a white guy for 18 days and a picture of a non-white guy for 2 days, and no pictures of women at all. This isn't because we had so many nominations of white guy news; it's because too many of us are voting based on personal opinions, and our personal opinions are unavoidably infected by systemic bias as a result of the culture we live in (far more so than mainstream media, which also has systemic bias, but at least has some built-in protections against it, which we lack). Levivich (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think my point stands. The same thing would have happened if Arden was succeeded by a woman or if the protests were about economic issues. The only difference is that no one would be making claims of "bias". Nonviolent protests of a few hundred people almost never have sustained notability, and we shouldn't post them just on the off chance that they might. The thing that was predicted in RS didn't happen. If we post this, then there are at least a dozen other protests going on around the world that we should post as well. Now if we just nominated whatever was on the front page of the BBC without regard for sustained notability, that would create a clear systemic bias. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If Adern had been succeeded by a woman, the same thing would have happened, and it would still be systemic bias, and I'd still be complaining about it. You're missing the point, re-read what is wrote: the systemic bias in that situation was ITN deciding that the resignation wasn't important enough to post until there was a successor. It's the failure to recognize what the RS recognized: that the resignation of a female PM is significant -- more so than just a change in PM. The result is systemic bias because it was highly likely that the successor would be male. That's why it's systemic bias, not personal bias. The system overlooks the unique aspect of it being a female PM resigning, but it doesn't overlook the ordinary aspect of a change in PM (which overwhelmingly involves men, since that's the world we live in). Back to this nom: it's not about the protests. It's about the killing of Tyre Nichols. That's the important story. That's what the world's media has been writing about for the past four (almost five now) days in a row. The failure to recognize that police being charged with murdering an unarmed black man as important, unless there are "George Floyd level" protests, or riots, is systemic bias. It's the failure to recognize this event as important, even though it is important, even though reliable sources all agree it's important, because we are working in a system (here, ITN) that has biased results (like way over emphasizing white guy news to the exclusion of news about non-white-male people). There is no basis in policy, no basis in reliable sources, for suggesting this killing isn't worth posting to ITN. There is no "must be a movement or riots" rule or even a principle from which such a rule could be drawn. Focusing on the protests and not on Tyre Nichols is an example of systemic bias. Some are saying this is common--the violence is common, but the video, and the charges, are not common. Failing to recognize this as extraordinary is the systemic bias of which I speak. We post the darts champion's picture for days (white guy), but police being charged with murdering an unarmed black man, brutally, on video, isn't important enough unless there are historic protests (not "just" nationwide protests)? I'm sorry but if we make such decisions, we are valuing ordinary white people news over and above extraordinary black people news. It's just like Adern/Hipkins: we post ordinary men's news but don't post extraordinary women's news. This has become a very serious problem at ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The death happened 23 days ago (a week and a half before the oldest ITN item). Over the past four or five, the story's been arrests, video and state-sanctioned protests. That's not to say the death isn't the root of these problems, but the nom and the news are too closely timed to ignore here. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For those following along at home, this is a reply to the first two paragraphs above. The third came later. It's clearer now that Levi already gets how the charges and video are bigger than the everyday police violence. And yes, nationwide protests are historic. That's why we write about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and even I have to admit it feels a bit weird placing higher priority on a darts championship for posting rather than the death of a man, but at the same time, if we were to post every tragic murder, or protest, that's literally all we would post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Instead of posting every tragic murder or protest, how about we post just the ones that make international news for multiple days, like this one? How about we just post the ones where the President of the United States gives a speech about it, like this one? How about we just post the murders that lead to nationwide protests, like this one? How about just the ones where the article receives a million page views in the first couple days... like this one? Supporting this nom does not require changing any rules or even stretching the imagination. Opposing this nom does however require closing our eyes, both to our rules, to what's happening in the ITN box, to what our readers and the rest of the world are looking for, to the very purpose of ITN, to the very purpose of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of things happen in the US that lead to international coverage and the press talking about, we don't post every one since that would set an undue bias on US events. We also carry little about page views, since we are not newspaper dependent on that to keep out of the red ink. And if we only post the most popular topics, then by TOP25, we should be posting about Avatar 2, The Last of Us, and several other pop culture topics.
 * There is literally only one paragraph in the article about protests, and scanning news, there really isn't much at a national or international level about the protests that did happen. That is, while the press were gearing up for something as dire as the George Floyd protests, that simply didn't materialize in that expected manner.. what protests their were after the video release were tame. Thus the story here is not about the protests, but simply the arrest if the officers for murder, which is not the type if story we cover at ITN. M asem (t) 14:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nableezy: You and I have been normally on diametrically opposing sides when it comes to ITN/C, but I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail right on the head. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but Ive always been right, even when you were wrong ;) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind, here we are back to being diametrically opposed again. 😌 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur, I think Nableezy and Bestagon have summed up the arguments pretty well PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This blurb reads as a little sensationalist. Protests have not "erupted" - there have been a few and each have been of relatively small scale. I'm fine wait ing, but as of now I would be opposed to this nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Switching my vote to oppose now, more or less per Masem, and also seeing as I feel the long-term impact of this incident really hasn't been substantiated. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately police brutality in the US is very common, and Black Lives Matter protests too. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Police brutality may be common, an officer being charged with murder is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Police brutality might be common (although on a larger scale, while way too common, it's still rare), but not of this caliber, on video. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If protests continue, we could instead post those to Ongoing instead of blurbing. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- for all those opposing, would you oppose if this was happening in the UK? It seems to me that this more than meets the requirements to post; it is indeed "in the news" by any metric. Stop with the anti-Americanism. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Big difference: in the UK (in Europe in general), this doesn't usually happen. If it happened in Brazil, would you support it? I certainly wouldn't. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of this story is it that you think usually happens in America, besides the initial beating of an unarmed Black man by police. Because it is unusual that there is video, that the police are fired, charged with murder, or that the video is released. It is unusual for multiple cities to have protests related to that video on one night. Which part of this is usual to you? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If this happened in Brazil, and video were released, and people were outraged about it? Yes. Also, although police brutality is less common in the UK, it's not unheard of. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't take the country into consideration when deciding significance. For something of a political nature, you might consider scope, impact, or duration, among other things:
 * The number of people directly affected is low. I would expect hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to be directly affected for it to be posted on the basis of scope.
 * There is no evidence of significant short-term impact. It's not likely that Memphis is going to be plunged into anarchy or have to undergo significant reconstruction, so it shouldn't be posted on the basis of impact.
 * There is no evidence that this will still be significant or relevant in WP:TWENTYYEARS, so there's no argument for duration.
 * If any of these three things changes, then I would strongly reconsider my oppose !vote. Compare the Peru protests, for example, which brought parts of the country to a standstill and plausibly may have affected national-level governance. Anti-Americanism is certainly a problem, and it should be prohibited on Wikipedia just like any other bigotry, but I don't think this is it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thebiguglyalien: The Memphis Scorpion Unit was just disbanded permanently and hundreds gathered in 'Washington Square Park' today. -- M h hossein   talk 15:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The disbanding is interesting, but it's a local task force. If it was the entire state law enforcement apparatus, I'd probably consider it significant. And I said "hundreds of thousands", not "hundreds". The fact that each of these protests are only a few hundred people essentially confirms to me that this doesn't reach the level of significance I'd expect for an ITN post. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The broader incident is a top news anyway, be it local or countrywide. -- M h hossein   talk 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major news, global RS coverage. I will remind users that !opposing "solely because the event is only relating to a single country" is invalid. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Impacts seem exaggerated. Riots? Looking around, I see reports of his death - which may be notable. But nothing about riots, and the protests seem relatively peaceful. I am seeing lots of coverage - but not about riots. Did we do a RD for this? Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because Tyre Nichols was not notable before he was murdered. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, RDs cannot be run on people whose notability was as a result of their death, per WP:BLP1E. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And the exact opposite guideline is in effect after much discussion at RD's parent article. If a person's name is in the title of a death article, they don't get removed at the end of the month. Any interpretations of BLP1E weigh less than Deaths in 20xx rules, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed mention of riots in first blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Protests are not on a scale we typically look for at ITN. And as noted above, I'm not seeing a lot of "riots." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed mention of riots in first blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose unfortunately, police brutality like this is fairly common in the United States, and there don't seem to be full-on riots yet. Protests like this is also fairly common in the U.S. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, per all above commenters. Bedivere (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral on blurbing the death, but including the protests seems a bit disingenuous to me. So far they are very small scale (the article talks about "75 people", "a dozen protestors", and 3 arrests) and quite localized. On the other hand, we can't include the indictment of the officers because of BLP. YD407OTZ (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also dont think anything in BLP prevents us from saying four officers were charged with murder when they verifiably have been charged with murder. We arent saying they are guilty of murder, but it is an unambiguous fact they have been charged. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus below seems to be that it would be a BLPCRIME issue. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ALT III Precise, concise and fair in its limited presumptions. If I have to nitpick, I'd only bolden the protests article instead of the death. The death is kind of stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: The impact is high enough for ITN. For those who say this is common in US; maybe, but this one is exceptional due to footage release showing the police savage behavior and the fact that significant reactions were resulted (FBI director said he was "appalled" after watching the video!!!). Also, given the Brown and George Floyd experiences, and dozens of others, this one is even more news worthy. Ha? they did it again? Wow !-- M h hossein   talk 15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You say "they did it again", but the consensus among criminologists is that this sort of phenomenon happens rather frequently in nearly every state, but it goes unreported due to lack of video evidence. That said, this is of course newsworthy due to the national fervor associated with its aftermath. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and I was careful enough to say "this one is exceptional due to footage release". -- M h hossein   talk 04:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be advisable to wait for sometime before posting this, to see if the protests prolong. Blurb and alt-blurb appear too verbose and exaggerative, the ones after these should be preffered. Gotitbro (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This is making front page news in Canada, which again is not America so the event is of international significance. 2607:9880:2D28:16:8D62:57BB:BA17:B0FE (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As stated above, this is obviously more newsworthy than many of the things currently already on the Front Page. Even outside of the US, it won't be hard to find outlets reporting on this event. Here it is on Bolivia's Pagina Siete, Peru's El Comercio, France's France24, the UK's BBC, and so on and so forth. You know what none of these outlets mention? Western Shara's president getting reelected. Yet that's on there. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have such strong opinions on the Western Sahara blurb, maybe you should've participated in that discussion. Or alternatively read WP:Consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that blurb being there. I'm just saying that if that meets the newsworthy criteria, this likely does as well. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment honestly, the fact that we haven't posted this, when it's the headline news story across the world, makes us look silly. I'm not sure why there is such a strong anti-American bias in ITN, but it is annoying. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not beholden to posting a news story simply because it is being reported on. Again, that's Wiki-News territory. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not, but we look like fools for not doing it. The whole point of ITN is to report things IN THE NEWS. This is about as "In The News" as you can get. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one here will look like a fool for a decision to support or oppose a ITN nom, and anyone reader who believes not posting a nom to ITN reduces our credibility is probably coming here for news and we are not a reporter of news. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would say this falls under, "what if the media reported an expected riot, and nobody came?" BD2412  T 22:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The protests are not that notable. However, I'll change my vote to ongoing if there are continued protests, but that has so far not been demonstrated.
 * Strong support. I will grant you that I do not check in on ITN all that often, but every time I have of late, I have been struck by just how completely un-anchored from WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR process here has become: instead of !votes rooted in coverage and RS, I invariably find the majority of positions (supporting and opposing entries, to be fair) more likely to be predicated in the completely subjective value-judgment assessments of editors as to why the subject is or is not "important" enough to mention--or sometimes based in thinly veiled rationalizations for the same.  Police abuses (even those accompanied by protests, massive media attention, exceptional and noteworthy action by authorities at local, state, and federal levels, and significant political impacts) aren't warranted for inclusion unless the protests devolve into riots? Since when? Why? Where is this anywhere codified in policy or other formalized community consensus? What an arbitrary, ad-hoc, and completely irrelevant-under-our-policies argument.


 * Likewise, purely domestic/"internal" U.S. issues don't warrant inclusion? That's another one I see conveniently reached for as a thin cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or more precisely IT'SNOTHINGBIGTOME), but again, where has the community ever enshrined this principle that "only subjects of global significance" are fit for ITN? If there's been a properly vetted change to a guideline regarding ITN in this respect, I'll be happy to eat some crow once someone shows it to me, but lacking that, this argument too is completely divorced from policy and established best practice on this project. (Edit: I just reviewed the current wording WP:ITN and discovered that not only are such arguments not endorsed by the guideline, but they are specifically identified as low-quality arguments to be avoided). As for the also prevalent position that WP:NOTNEWS somehow operates to keep mention of recent events out of the  In the News  section of the main page, that position is so manifestly, obviously, and profoundly obdurate that I don't even know how to approach someone making such an argument.


 * All of which is to say that the context of ITN is not so unique that the arguments here can abrogate or ignore our normal content policies. The only relevant evidence anyone should be advancing is that which is based in the volume and depth of coverage in sourcing, not idiosyncratic opinions directly from our editorial corps' mental processes as to why this subject is or is not "really important in the grander scheme of things".  You think that "the media" is blowing the story out of proportion?  Oh well, too bad--that is exactly as much an WP:OR argument here as it would be on the talk page for relevant articles.  You know what we call "the media" in contexts such as this? WP:RELIABLE SOURCES--you know, the stuff we are supposed to be basing our content on, rather than our individual, personal opinions?


 * In those terms, this is unambiguous: this is front page news on papers across the U.S. and well beyond and is getting similar coverage on the airwaves, on online news pages, and new media: American news constitutes a relatively limited part of my personal media diet, and I see this story everywhere in the global press. Yes, more prominent in the anglophone sphere, of course, but hardly relegated to U.S. domestic press.  And again, WP:ITN specifically notes that the existence or absence of major coverage in international press is a bad argument for or against inclusion of a particular topic, and that the volume, breadth, and depth of  overall coverage  is what is important.  But even were international coverage a prerequisite, it would still be handily met here, by miles.  This should be a WP:SNOW call for any editor basing their !vote on an objective WEIGHT test rather than a subjective personal assessment of the "actual importance" of the topic. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 03:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not have said it better myself. It seems like there's a contingent of Wikipedia that is simply unwilling to consider any actual news from the US to be "worthy" of ITN, even though this same contingent was fine with posting non-news from elsewhere, especially the UK. It's like yelling against the wind. I'm sympathetic to the fact that not every news story (or even most news stories) which are important in the US should be blurbed, but the only way someone can possibly believe that this story does not rise to the level of importance to merit a blurb is if they're ignoring the obvious; I don't mean any disrespect by that comment, but that's just how I see it. It makes Wikipedia look detached from reality. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I generally oppose "routine" US stories such as most mass shootings because the vast majority are in the news (in the rest of the world) for a very short amount of time - purely because they're so regular. But this was top of the page in reliable sources for quite a few days - it does seem to have dropped off today, though it's still the 2nd story after the Pakistani bombing on BBC World News. I think it passes. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It is being widely covered in reliable sources and no issues with article quality. I think alt3 is best.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- given that there is consensus, can an admin please post this? Thanks. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to think there is no consensus, and that if further participation doesn't occur, an admin will likely close it as such. Also, there are a god-awful high number of blurbs to pick from.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of all the numbers in the multiple choice world, seven is probably the least ungodliest, and as a man with a rainbow connection, I'd expect higher praise of it from you. You're right that more than three options isn't conducive to helping a group that already disagrees agree in time, though. If that's what you meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming consensus is determined by the weight of the arguments and not pure numbers, support should win out. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose didn't see much coverage in most of the world then, and there's even less of it now. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Because it's been in the news in the US and outside the US for the past week. Here is today's BBC story about it, and today's AP, and today's Reuters. Can anyone name another story from the US in the past 6 months that received international coverage every day for a week? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, the record high inflation & Ukraine war both heavily involve the US and have been receiving international coverage for months, if not years. Banedon (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously, those are examples of stories from the US? You realize the first one is happening everywhere and the second one is not happening in the US? Levivich (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are examples of stories involving the US. If you disagree, I have no more comment. Banedon (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really now? Don't be disingenuous. You didn't say "involving the US". You said "FROM the US". Inflation and Ukraine are not stories FROM the US. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 *I* didn't say "from the US". Levivich said it. Read the above carefully. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Elon Musk bought Twitter FROM the American people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Now that some time has passed, it is clear this was a significant event with a significant response. Admin discretion on whichever of the seven(!) blurbs they favor. Curbon7 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Today was his funeral, it's in the news in Canada, the UK, Spain, France, Germany, China India, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Qatar, and of course BBC, AP, Reuters, AFP, and UPI. The first time I posted international coverage of this story was on Jan 27 UTC. Today is Feb 2 UTC. Over this period of time, the article has received |Death_of_Tyre_Nichols over 1.5 million views. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But nothing significant has happened. There was some peaceful protests, but nowhere close to the level of protests that the George Floyd protests created (like all of 70 protestors in New Orleans yesterday). There is yet no convictions yet. There are more serious and sizable protests happening in other places in the world (like UK and France related to labor policies) that actually have a larger impact on the world than these, at this point. Maybe if the conviction comes down and these officers are acquitted, we're going to see the South and major urban centers light up and be larger than any prior events, at which point those protests would be ITN. But that's then, not now.
 * I cannot stress more than enough that we (en.wiki) are not a newspaper, and when it comes to ITN we cannot follow what the news media thinks is important (otherwise, as I've pointed out, we've be flush with pop culture topics and US/UK daily politics, aka we are not a news ticker), nor are we here to serve readers that are coming here looking for newspaper content, at least at the cost of a quality encyclopedic article, Writing encyclopedia articles is at odds with trying to write like for newspaper (writing in broad, long-term approach rather than the day-by-day nitty gritty), which is why NOT#NEWS exists. We have people trying to detail the events in this case too narrowly (unlike the Floyd protests, there is almost no long-term impact of the day-to-day protests that need covering). Particularly when we consider how limited we can cover non-US and UK topics. I'm not saying we stymie ourselves in crafting articles on clearly notable events in the US and UK, but we should be writing as if they occurred 10 years ago and the small details are simply unnecessary, so that we have similar equity in article quality for notable events in other non-US/UK countries. M asem  (t) 04:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Significant things that happened: (1) an unarmed black man was beaten to death by police officers, (2) it was captured on multiple videos, which were publicly released, (3) the police officers lied about it in their reports, as we learned in the last day or so, (4) the police officers are being charged with murder, and (5) this killing is leading to police reforms at various levels of government in the US. The nationwide protests were smaller than the George Floyd protests, but protests are not the point; the killing is the point. Apply any logical measure or test that results in the current ITN postings being a "pass", and this nomination is also a "pass" under that measure or test. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yang Yi

 * Support Thorough depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support High enough quality; well-referenced. Happily888 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mesir Suryadi

 * Comment: Any chance it could be de-orphaned with links from other relevant articles? Otherwise has appropriate depth of coverage and referencing.  Spencer T• C 06:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added links to two different articles.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-cited and holistic. A little underlinked, especially in the latter half, but not that big a deal for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support High enough quality; well referenced. Happily888 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Azerbaijani embassy attack

 * Support. As per the nom, deadly attacks on embassies are quite rare - a rough estimate from List of attacks on diplomatic missions would suggest an average of once a year. The significance is increased by this being the first one on an Azerbaijani one, making this a very big deal there. It's also been reported across major global news outlets. I think this is a good example of an event that's blurb-worthy without being ITN/R or all over the place in Anglophone media. The article is in good shape, too. --GGT (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Attacks on embassies are significant. The article is sufficiently long and sufficiently well-cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per GGT. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Attacks on embassies are quite rare, definitely something important. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support only on the grounds that it was very likely a terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think an attack on an embassy, whether terrorist or state-sanctioned or otherwise, which results in death of a state official is clearly something we should be posting. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This killed a guard, not an official. I'm not saying officials are worth more, even if they have an article, or that I Oppose this post. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "guard" killed was the head of the embassy's security service. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if he'd been the head chef, I'd still call him a chef rather than a state official. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And before you dismiss that as coming from a far-out country bumpkin (which I am), note how the state's top diplomat officially refers to "another security guard" and "other employees". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Observing this new blurb, I read the article and found it to be of poor quality – the English is stilted. And the incident seemed quite petty – a domestic matter about a wife which became lethal because the guy with a grievance had a gun.  Browsing the BBC and the NYT, I see no mention of it whereas the drone strike on Iran is getting reported there.  So, it doesn't seem to be in the news in a significant way.  As shootings go, this seemed less significant than the recent ones in California. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PullFor one dead? And it doesn't seem to be a terrorist attack for which one support was given.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't pull - An attack on an embassy is not everyday news, and we have a good enough article. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull One dead from an attack that for all purposes appears to be a lone wolf and not associated with any terrorist group? (Yes, they initially treated it as a terrorist one for easing the investigation, but they seem to have backed off that) Yes, it is an attack on an embassy but this is nowhere close to the scale of other events already on the board and likely to be added sooner, and a story on violence within a region already filled with violence. --M asem (t) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Attacks on embassies are rare and are automatically diplomatic scandals with implications on the bilateral relations between the countries. So, comparing this to other attacks of similar scale is like comparing apples and oranges.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. Likely no long-term significance. Attacks on embassies may be rare, but just because it's rare doesn't mean it's notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull for lack of any long-term significance. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan has evacuated the embassy staff and suspended the embassy's operation by now, article updated accordingly. Suggest keeping. Brandmeistertalk  10:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak support Quality article with good depth that pushes this toward support territory for me.  Spencer T• C 04:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep But Altblurb I got ghosted at ERRORS, feel free to disregard me here, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull because it's nowhere near important enough. We don't post the vast majority of attacks which have higher death tolls. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This was a major news in international mass media, including CNN, BBC, NYT, The Washington Post, Reuters, etc. Also it led to a significant crisis in relations between Azerbaijan and Iran, with Azerbaijan closing operation of its embassy and evacuating its personnel. Grand  master  19:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull The attacker was not politically motivated, as stated by the media. One dead? Not really important enough. -- M h hossein   talk 05:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dont Pull - I can not see why some of us are making such a big deal over the low death toll. The death toll is not the only factor that may make an attack notable. The armed attack on the embassy resulted in the death of the head of the embassy's security staff and the injury of two others. In addition, this armed attack was one of the factors why Azerbaijan closed its embassy in Iran. This is definitely not a routine event, thus it should not be pulled. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 06:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep it this was significant worldwide news and it serves to show the wide range of Wikipedia's articles. We tend to focus too much on US the Europe. We should try to get more blurbs from other parts of the world. Jehochman Talk 06:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. These sorts of attacks capture the news cycle because of their international importance, and this article is high-quality enough to remain there. No need to pull. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dont Pull — Some commenters seem to be either unaware of the incident or have not read the article.

1) Attacking embassies is a common practice in Iran. There were attacks on the US embassy in Iran in 1979, on the British embassy in 2011, and on the Saudi Arabian embassies in 2016.

2) After this attack, Azerbaijan evacuated its embassy Tehran.

--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't pull So we have the Iranians claiming it was a domestic incident and the Azeris claiming it was a (possibly state-sanctioned) act of terror. Now, both sides are wildly unreliable authoritarian regimes, so I don't see why we should take either at their word. Regardless of the intention, this attack is spiraling relations between two countries who are closer to war than a lot of people realize. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Cheneso

 * Weak support article looks good. 22 deaths is quite significant. It seems that last year a tropical storm hit Madagascar leading to 142 fatalities, and that would have been nominated if the article quality was good enough. Azpineapple (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Even though it isn't as serious as last year's storm, 22 deaths isn't a small number. The article is pretty good as well. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support As said by @The Bestagon Vriend1917 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Query Is the inclusion of "For the latest official information, see: links" standard for ongoing storms? Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Jenin killings and East Jerusalem synagogue shooting

 * There are several parts that could be included, but the most significant outcome so far, obviously besides the loss of life, is the Palestinian Authority suspending security cooperation with Israel . Could be something like The Palestinian Authority suspends security coordination with Israel as tensions escalate following an Israeli raid in the West Bank and a Palestinian attack in East Jerusalem. Also, the two articles maybe should just be merged together. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Id support altblurb1, but would prefer now offered alt3. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do think it should be posted, we shouldn't conflate the killing of people at a synagogue with those killed during a raid on terrorists. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How would we be conflating them if the synagogue attack was a response to the raid? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The two events are clearly connected, with several Palestinian factions and sources celebrating the synagogue shooting as "revenge" for the raid. Plus, the "raid on terrorists" also killed civilians. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment All editors participating in this should be aware of the sanctions and remedies established in WP:ARBPIA. Per those remedies, this discussion is restricted to users who have ECP. As a personal note, as this is a clearly contentious area, let's all try to stay on topic and keep the temperature low. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Combine them, all major sources report one as a response to the other. Else, neither. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb 3 should say "at" rather than "on"? Selfstudier (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on the attack, and support altblurb one if there is a consensus to combine. However, oppose combining as while coverage of the attack does mention the raid the blurb puts undue emphasis on the raid - the BBC article on the attack, for example, includes 24 paragraphs, of which only one discusses the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article still mentions the raid, which proves Thebiguglyalien's point that it's seen as a retaliation. Only talking about the synagogue attack makes it seem like the attack came out of nowhere, when the timing shows it's most likely otherwise. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are connected, but to comply with WP:N we need to ensure that we reflect the respective emphasis in reliable sources. None of the proposed blurbs do this, as they put too much emphasis on the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this is not a blurb about the attack that just happens to mention the raid. This is a blurb about two significant events. The raid has received extensive coverage in its own right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb I or III. This is clearly a tit-for-tat attack, so it's important to mention both. To only blurb one or the other invites accusations of bias. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * agree, both should be featured.  M h hossein   talk 05:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. I think it stands to reason that these two events are connected, but it might be worth us waiting for a bit more verification. To link these events. Sure Hamas claimed responsibility, but I don't feel we should be inclined to take their word for it. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be best to wait a bit, I'm not seeing a clear cut claim from Hamas/PIJ in the latest sources. Of course, viewing it as just a coincidence seems a bit of a stretch. Lone wolf is a possibility, however. Selfstudier (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The lone-wolf aspect of it is what I'm wary of yeah. Hamas could totally be piggybacking off it. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support On the one hand both incidents involved multiple fatalities and are clearly terrorism related. But being brutally honest, this sort of thing is not exactly uncommon in that part of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 - The Guardian described the Palestinian attack as "the worst in years" and made the connection with the Israeli raid, describing it as "the deadliest in two decades". Both events are thus significant and connected. Note as well that the death toll has risen to eight. The articles are good enough too, except for one CN tag in the 2023 Jenin killings article. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the Israeli raid killed ten people and not nine, so the article should be updated to reflect that. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, no strong preference about which blurb. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since there has been more violence today, I would support (and prefer) an updated blurb that works that in. Maybe even a generic "violence erupts" blurb if it's too complicated to discuss the individual events. Or, better, Support adding I-P conflict to ongoing where it should have been the entire time ITN existed. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The NYT report says that this is "latest escalation of a particularly violent cycle in the region, where the situation — never calm — began to worsen last spring". So, it's an ongoing situation.  This appears in the list of ongoing armed conflicts as going back to 1948 with about 27,000 deaths total to date.  That just rates as minor, as these things go. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Escalation of the conflict, In The News. While I can see the argument that this is unfortunately nothing new in Israel/Palestine, I still think that this should be posted on the basis of notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Violence around the Gaza Strip region (including into Jerusalem) is sadly too common there due to the long-term conflicts there. --M asem (t) 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is being described as the worst terrorist attack on Israelis in years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 to avoid undue weight. And yes, consider me warned about the discretionary sanctions. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After much ado, ds is now ct :) Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that's right. I forgot all about that change. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: A 13-year-old Palestinian gunman injured two Israeli civilians in East Jerusalem today. Adding an AP News article to the sources list, but I'll leave any additions or rewriting of the blurbs to discussion. In regard to significance, the new source also notes that the Jan 26 raid was the deadliest single incursion in the West Bank since 2002, so it's not business as usual for the region. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This article gives a longer perspective, the temperature has been increasing slowly for a couple years now and the new Israeli government is considered to be raising it some more. Definitely not business as usual. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt3–sadly too common, but still important. -- lomrjyo  talk 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II and this one should replace the attack on the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , we don't get to pick and choose what does and doesn't roll off. The blurb that rolls off is always the oldest blurb on the list (i.e. the bottommost one), which is currently the Kyiv helicopter crash. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There are contradicting reports. is was the most NPOV blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. This report for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 06:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Douma chemical attack

 * Oppose First off, the article hasn't been edited since November 2022, so there is no update to the article to evaluate. Secondly, so what? This report isn't telling us anything that we didn't already know. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Muboshgu PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is neither news, nor in the news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom per above. -Ad Orientem (talk)

RD: Sylvia Syms

 * Not yet ready A few spots in the prose need citations, and her entire television filmography is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The BFI source covers both her film and television credits. The only exception was the 2019 credit, which I found a separate source for. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had spot-checked it, and unless I'm mistaken, there are a bunch missing. 1972 The Adventurer, 1991 Countdown, 2002 Doctor Zhivago, 2008 New Tricks, and 2009 Blue Murder, as just some examples I randomly selected. Curbon7 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(closed) Blurb: Tyre Nichols

 * Wait for Altblurb We don't really do arrests, but we certainly do video-bolstered outrage, if sufficiently bolstered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the situation changes. Arrests on their own are not notable, and the response will not be notable unless it escalates into citywide riots. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose  as said by @Thebiguglyalien Vriend1917 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Top story at BBC.com right now: . When the BBC is reporting that the US president is urging calm ahead of a video of police brutality that will be released Friday night, it's an indication. It's likely there will be protests, and it's likely to stay in the news, and we're likely to post it, the only question is what the blurb will say exactly. It's not just the BBC, also The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and of course it's the top story in all US news outlets right now, and the video isn't even out yet. Support, we can update the blurb as events progress. Levivich (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not exactly urging calm, he's "calling for peaceful protest", outrage without violence. That could make a good altblurb. Not every day the president calls on citizens to protest a criminal matter rather than just let the judicial system do its job.InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An arrest of a police officer for the killing of a civilian in the United States is absolutely notable, and rare. From the NYT in 2020: Law enforcement officers kill about 1,000 people a year across the United States. Since the beginning of 2005, 121 officers have been arrested on charges of murder or manslaughter in on-duty killings, according to data compiled by Philip M. Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Of the 95 officers whose cases have concluded, 44 were convicted, but often of a lesser charge, he said. Shades of Laquan Mcdonald in the arrest only coming when the video is ordered released, but absolutely notable, absolutely in the news. Support. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Main page should adhere to WP:BLPCRIME policy: —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per this policy. This is a mere allegation and should not be in the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No police officer is named in the article. The police officers that have been charged have indeed been charged with a crime. That is verifiable fact. And nothing in BLPCRIME says we cannot say so. If you feel it does, then it is a BLP violation to include the charges in the article. Do you actually think that is true? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just read the article and the five officers were named. You can't rely on the state of the article unless it is completely locked. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure people Joe Biden and Al Sharpton highlight in federal public safety reform campaigns become public figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Btw, this is another case of police abuse in the United States. It did not have the same international impact/coverage as George Floyd. So no, it’s not ITNR worthy. Not now, not later. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * George Floyd also wasn't on George Floyd's level until after the viral violent video, so it's not fair to compare yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, which articles featured on the main page should adhere to. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME? For internationally-reported arrests of police officers? That didn't stop us from posting about George Floyd, and we create these articles all the time. Tonight there will be protests, give it a minute. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The key part is that as these are not public figures as BLP defines, their mere arrest is not something we should be shouting from the rooftops by plugging it in an ITN box. M asem (t) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose mere arrests; even a conviction seems unlikely to be significant enough to justify a blurb. So far there are minimal signs of broad impacts. If major protests erupt, then we can consider those on their own merits, in a separate nomination. WP:CRYSTAL applies. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why a separate nom and not this one? Levivich (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Likely as there was nearly no protests comparable to the Floyd ones from this event - the PD took a rapid step to outright fire the officers than cover up anything, and given the racial makeup of the fired officers, its hard to bring in racial motivation as it was in the case of Floyd. So there's nothing to report beyond the remaining legal trials from these arrests, yet. If they all get off completely free, there could be riots from that, but that's not going to happen until the trials happen. M asem (t) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still top news today, 2nd news cycle, and it will stay in the news all weekend. The video is being released tonight. There will be protests tonight and this weekend. My question was: why a new nom and not this nom? I don't see the point in closing this today and making a new nom tomorrow. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And ITN doesn't care how much a topic dominates the news, otherwise we'd only be covering US and UK politics and pop culture. And if riots actually break out, we'd likely need a rescoped article, but they might not even happen. It would be better to start a fresh ITNC if the riots are the key story. --M asem (t) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not refer to protests as riots. The video will be released in about 9 hours. In 12 hours, the story on all the news will be "protests erupt after video is released of the death of Tyre Nichols", which will be a blurb we can post without BLPCRIME concerns. It makes no sense to close this nom before then and require someone to make a new nom. By tomorrow consensus will develop to post. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one referred to protests as riots. If protests "break out", it might not be ITN-worthy.  If riots happen, it most certainly would be ITN-worthy. 2607:F470:E:22:B825:75C6:626A:5AD1 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: No one HERE referred to protests as riots. Numerous people in the outside world make their fortunes off of such "misrepresentations". 2607:F470:E:22:B825:75C6:626A:5AD1 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The notable aspect of events like this is what happens afterwards, from possible unrest to criminal proceedings/convictions. The arrest itself is too soon to post, as we do not yet know the impact of this case. Kafoxe (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The BLPCRIME votes make zero sense to me, if you feel it is a BLPCRIME issue then nominate the article for speedy deletion. This is widely reported, BLP does not exist as something to suppress uncomfortable material if and when it is widely reported in reliable sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose unless a conviction is secured, this article is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it stands. This is a tragic death, but it is too early to determine its significance. BD2412  T 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) ChatGPT passes graduate level exams from law and business schools

 * Oppose It's an interesting story but ChatGPT is already a top-read article since the tool was announced – #4 yesterday, for example. We can expect a stream of such achievements and so it's more of an Ongoing item now.  I asked it what it thought and it replied, "As a language model, I do not have the capability to take exams or have qualifications. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to announce this news on Wikipedia or any other external platform."  So, it's modest too.  I'd like to see how it does with some other tests such as the senility test which Trump boasted of passing.  Or those common, "are you a bot?" tests. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Niratias! This language model didn't "pass", it simply provided more of the correct answers while utterly failing the part where it advances in some meaningful way, like a human would. No qualification, no new job opportunity, not even a feeling of accomplishment. No class would accept it as a colleague, only a tool to pitch out first drafts really quickly, like the way "real" artists feel about very talented but creepy image generators. It's not being modest, it's being honest, and that's another problem. Without reason to lie and get ahead, I believe it when it says posting would be inappropriate. It knows things we don't about why. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose really Count?? _-_Alsor (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I expect from Count. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Assume Good Faith. No need to be patronising. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor can we ignore the obvious and the facts. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @InedibleHulk. I do think we shouldn't immediately discount GPT-related nominations, as this is causing such a stir. But, as Inedible pointed out, it's a bit misleading to say it 'passed' the exams. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In actual modesty, I didn't point it out, I just "finetuned" what Andrew said the bot said. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - natural language processing, but otherwise not impressive. Not exactly rocket science being tested, and not exactly headlines. Juxlos (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jessie Lemonier

 * Oppose Almost all of the citations appear to be primary sources, including tweets and team press releases. Additionally, the article is far from holistic; the entire early life and collegiate football career is missing, and his professional career is barely even bare bones. Sources available on newspapers.com may help at least some of these problems. Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Fisher

 * Comment: Seems to be a bunch of 1 and 2-sentence paragraphs, should be condensed into larger paragraphs as appropriate. Otherwise seems fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 05:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, good enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Happily888 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(closed) 2023 BU misses Earth

 * Oppose Unless it actually hit the earth, this is not notable. MyriadSims (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even if it hit the earth, unlikely the world would notice. Levivich (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't see the point of posting this. According to the article, nothing would happen even it is was hurtling towards Earth: Assuming the asteroid is at the larger size estimate of 8 meters in diameter, an impact by it would not reach the ground intact and would breakup around 30 km above the ground. Hence I can't see why this is ITN-worthy. Anyone interested could nominate this at DYK.  Schwede 66  23:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how high the Chelyabinsk meteor broke up. Could see a lot shattered glass and social media chaos. Not as much as when a 20-metre bolide does it, by my crap math, but maybe a third. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's impressive that this has been detected and analysed so quickly. According to JPL, "this is one of the closest approaches by a known near-Earth object ever recorded". Andrew🐉(talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "One of the" isn't impressive, on its own. One of the three closest approaches might sway me, but one of the Top 40 will leave me as bored as TomMasterReal. The quick detection and analysis of spacerock data is just one of the many amazing things about scientific measurement capabilities in the 2023 AD. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 4th except for meteors including predictions from now till 2201 AD starts (maybe a longer database exists?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fourth just leaves me in my usual state of moderate wonder on what might have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not a major event, it's just a rock in space that is a couple thousand miles above the Earth.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something didn't happen today is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the proposed thing will happen tomorrow, so far away. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- would be worth posting if it were actually to hit the Earth, or at least, if it were something that would be dangerous if it did hit the Earth, but since it will not hit the Earth, and is not dangerous, there's no reason to post it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per prior. The Kip (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Unlike the other astronomical story nominated, this doesn't really have any noteworthy value. The object wasn't visible from Earth, and had no real significance. Good faith nom, but I don't think this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's only 'closest' if you ignore the ones that hit. Astronomers have spotted objects this size that actually impacted the atmosphere, predicted exactly where it would happen, and recovered the meteorites on the ground (e.g. 2008 TC3). Such a small meteoroid is no danger to anyone. This has DYK-level interest, but isn't suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A literal non-event. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Really cool subject! Sad that our article doesn't even have section headers. It's a stub really. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Opening of East Side Access

 * Support Quality and significance seem met. Only question is timing. GreatCaesarsGhost   21:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The news coverage is there, and the article is in excellent shape, but- and I say this as an NYC resident- I'm not sure how important this is to anyone besides Long Islanders? -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insignificant to no NYC resident and its impact and international coverage is nil. Bona fide nom. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I love trains and public transit, and I personally find this super cool, even as a non-NYC resident. However, major construction projects happen all the time. If this project had some kind of notable fact - e.g. predicted to be the most trafficked route in the world, most expensive rail project of all time, first use of a new rail innovation - I might consider it blurb-worthy. I think this is better suited for DYK. e.b. (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is for DYK. It could be nominated for FAC though.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support High quality Good Article. I found it pretty interesting. Would encourage people to nominate more articles like thios.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work It appears that there will just be a "limited service to Jamaica" initially and so there seem to be some loose ends still. And the reference to Jamaica may puzzle some readers who associate this name with the Caribbean island.  But the delays and budget overruns on this project make Crossrail look good and so some airing of the agony is appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - While it's true this is an opportunity to put a Good Article up on the Main Page, we did not post the Northern line extension to Battersea in September 2021, which would probably be considered about the equivalent to this type of event. Seems a bit unfair to snub one but not the other if our intention is to diversify our news on ITN. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another infrastructure project that was way more significant was the Elizabeth Line, again in London. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose major public transit events happen all the time, just because it's in NYC, doesn't mean it is ITN worthy.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the blurb clearly explains what the "East Side Access" is. Even for US readers, this seems like a niche topic for ITN. (Will it play in Peoria?) Zagal e jo (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose an interesting article, of refreshingly good quality, but this is a two-mile rail link; this isn't near the level of significance of events we typically post. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two-mile extension of an existing line in a single city. Doesn't meet notability benchmark to me. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose On grounds of significance (or rather, lack thereof). Compusolus (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - This is interesting news, but, per above, I don't think it qualifies for ITN. I'm going with Weak Oppose, however, as I don't think large infrastructure projects should immediately be discounted for ITN. I don't think 'East Side Access' really qualifies as a mega project (though it will certainly transform transit in NYC!), but something like a brand new high-speed rail line in the US could be notable. I think once/if California High Speed Rail, or Texas Central Railway, or something of the sort is completed, we should consider it for notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think we should seek to diversify the stories we post, as it seems like 90% of nominations are either sport-related, changes in head-of-state/government, or X tragedy kills Y people.  PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Needs Attention) Dissolution of the Moscow Helsinki Group

 * Support Article is in good enough quality, is updated with the relevant information and well referenced, and the story is being covered by major news organizations in a way that indicates this is significant. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few (like 3) cn tags on major claims. Curbon7 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant news and sufficient quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely news worthy, it shows that human rights in Russia are degrading each day, I also agree with the other supports. Vriend1917 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * • Support The article is good quality, news is newsworthy.  Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If Age Matters, the group by this name that started in 1976 lasted six years and the one shut down today began in 1989. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While broadly associated with the blanket term "human rights", the original group's main purpose was annual reporting on Helsinki Accord violations by the Soviet Union. In 2023, this job has largely been taken over by a much larger and hourly collective of reporters and international information agencies, commonly called "the news". The "2010s and 2020s" section mostly has it defending itself from accusations that it's a Western tool, not defending the sort of people that "human rights" came to closely stand for in the same period. Basically, it was already dying and this court ruling was as formal as it seems. Perhaps we can still watch for news on whether any board members are convicted of crimes in the wake. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @InedibleHulk. I would also argue this is partly covered by ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as this is clearly tied to the ongoing war entry. Justification by being the oldest rights group in Russia doesn't really establish its larger relevance that is not already covered by the ongoing. If it were the case that, say, the Red Cross closed down, that would be of a scale worth posting. --M asem (t) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is practically too legit to quit. Also has a completely different form and function to go with the vastly dissimilar size. If you want to compare apples and apples, you want the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It indeed is not tied to the ongoing war entry, it is adjacent to it, in a similar way to the helicopter crash. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Only a ~two-sentence update this year. Doesn't feel like an appropriate content update to feature on the front page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it's in the news, the article quality is good enough (I don't consider a few tags to be a problem), and ITN is stale right now. Levivich (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because (a) the group doesn't seem to be that significant on its own as InedibleHulk pointed out, and (b) the article has not been updated enough to merit a blurb IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Historical moment. ArionEstar (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way is it historical? The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant news with good article. Alex-h (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convinced by the significance, and there are a couple of tags in the article that need addressing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Afghanistan cold wave

 * Support Reading up on some news reports, this is a lot more severe than the winter storm that happened a little while ago in the US, which was blurbed. Though, the article... yeah, that needs a ton of work, but it's early days in the nomination, there's still plenty of time for someone to go in and solve that issue. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Target is a stub, would support when expanded. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also would support when it's not a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Same. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now Support as it's been expanded. 1500 characters is good enough for DYK, I'm fine with posting a 1400 character article to ITN. It's all cited, and I'd rather have a short timely article at ITN than have weeks-old news as we do now. Levivich (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not belong on the mainpage in this state. Support in principle if expanded.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality per above. Article is in need of serious expansion. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability. Will change vote when article's cleaned up/expanded. The Kip (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Browsing the news, it appears that heavy snow is currently disrupting a long list of countries including Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea and more.  This appears to be wintry weather typical of January and it's quite cold here in the UK too.  If deaths are what really matters then 124 is not a large number for an entire country.  In China, they are running out of coffins as the death toll from their COVID wave bites.  The numbers there are over 100 times greater. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So why did we blurb the December 2022 North American winter storm then? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't of, but unfortunately, ITNC is often swayed by popularity votes or claims "it's all over the news" . Average death tolls in nearly annual events like winter storms or flooding (which kills thousands each year in China and India as another example) should be taken as routine stories, just like the NA winter storm. I don't know if this specific storm in the Middle East is typical or unusual, but if its typical, we probably shouldn't be blurbing it. M asem (t) 13:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost every weather event occurs annually or multiple times a year and does not have an unusual death toll. If this is the case, we shouldn't be blurbing ANY of them as their death tolls are typical and expected. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't agree with Masem here. I think there was a solid consensus to post the North American winter storm, and I also believe that particular storm needs to be the barometer by which we measure other storms in terms of death toll and significance, regardless of which region they occur in. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that using the NA storm feeds on more systematic bias. Because it affected the US, it got *lots* of coverage, while its still apparent here that this storm in the Middle East - far away from the US and UK, is getting next to no coverage. From an encyclopedic topic aspect, the storms should be treated equally, but we let too much of the media's bias affect how we cover weather topics in ITN. M asem (t) 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's kind of unavoidable, don't you? WP:ITN's stated purpose is to showcase quality content on current events/items that are in the news. More often than not, quality correlates with reliable source coverage. I'd rather it be otherwise, but I don't think denying both stories is the answer to that. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should strive to still cover (both in general and at ITN) news events that may only get a few stories in major papers, with stories that get wide coverage. We need some coverage to be notable, and that is a systematic bias already, but once past that, the number of RSes covering a topic shouldn't matter or come into play, beyond the ability to write a quality article. Hence why we need a review and consensus of topics that try to fight against systematic bias. M asem (t) 17:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know but most of the country is at least as high as the South Appalachians (their mountain passes even go high enough to cause low antigravity in bin Laden-killing helicopters and hypoxia in healthy young drivers, Earth's first mention of altitude sickness is from the ancient Silk Road from China to Afghanistan or nearby and points west) and about that latitude and they get lots of snow without the benefit of Afghanistan's possible Caspian Sea effect snow (don't know if it's still after crossing Turkmenistan) and total mountain protection from air lower latitude than them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic shouldn't we refrain from blurbing most extreme weather events because they are somewhat routine (i.e. the Atlantic and Pacific seeing a few major hurricanes/typhoons a year)? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article will never get posted if it remains in this state, and unfortunately, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve that. Storms that occur in the United States have the benefit of being in an area with excellent English-RS coverage, with reporters that can go door-to-door to assess storm impacts. There's no benefit of that in Afghanistan. Indeed, this is why systemic bias is such a problem on ITN. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Winter draws on I browsed a physical newspaper on the tube just now and the weather headlines there were about the local weather here in the UK (where the south is unusually colder than the north). And more impressive was that in China's most northerly city, they have a record low temperature of -53°C (-63°F).  CNN explains that From China to Japan, extreme cold is gripping East Asia.  So, Afghanistan doesn't seem so special as it's not in this especially cold zone.  Its problems are more to do with the Taliban and the withdrawal of international aid. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, the deaths of so many people, and the resulting humanitarian crisis, should definitely be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb and article seem mistaken. The sources say these dead accumulated over the last fortnight, across the country, due to cold and generator poisonings. No mention of a storm, especially an ongoing one that started on January 17. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note I've corrected the article, making this no longer a storm, but a cold snap. I didn't change the nom stuff because the replies would have stopped making sense and someone else might prefer the term "cold wave" soon. But it's worth reconsidering (I still oppose). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Cold Wave sounds better personally PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A likely story! I won't mind if you move the article there (lowercase, of course). But always remember, trees and water tend to sound snappy in the cold while air and animals appear wavier in the heat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've changed the nom stuff, replies still make sense enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Support once expanded though. Vida0007 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's worthy of ITN but three days in, it's still a stub.  Schwede 66  07:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose until expanded The article quality is disgusting. Should be at least the quality of November 2022 Great Lakes winter storm to even consider posting. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Titewhai Harawira

 * Comment Too many direct quotations to the point it negatively affects to the surrounding prose (WP:OVERQUOTE). Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Needs work, currently has neutrality issues and isn't hugely readable. I've made a start and welcome anyone else who wants to assist. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, been working on this one and think/hope it is now ready for ITN. It's been a tricky one given how controversial a figure she is, but I've endeavoured to be as neutral as possible. in case you have capacity to take another look (no worries if not). Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Great work by Chocmilk03. I've gone through the article and tweaked a few things plus added a classic line delivered on behalf of Jacinda Ardern that demonstrates just how much influence Harawira had on the prime minister of the day. It's now ready for posting AFAIC.  Schwede 66  07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good for RD. Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Victor Navasky

 * Oppose for now As stated by the nom, there is a fundamental lack of sourcing for chunks of the article. Curbon7 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Little improvement since. Curbon7 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Dark chocolate

 * Meh. This is the type of high-engagement, low-impact stuff you find in the "health and science" sections of newspapers.  Can't really see any evidence this is major news; it certainly isn't a top-flight story on any of the major services.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Health and science being of minor significance compared to the important stuff like shootings and sport, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This makes it sound like this is a WP:POINT nomination. I was actually just looking for science articles to post today to try and create some balance among news topics, but I decided that little things like this aren't sufficient. It would need to be something like a new element being discovered, the extinction of a well-known animal, a cure for a major disease, etc. Some sort of major breakthrough or discovery. I wonder if a new major iceberg is significant enough, but it currently doesn't have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is much bigger news than any sports event AFAIC and there are so few nominations of any sort that it seemed better than than nothing. See the talk page for discussions of the general state of ITN and what might be done about. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The news that a food "may" have lead is certainly not a bigger news story than sport event. This story is barely even in news outlets let alone notable for a blurb. Jbvann05  17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Consumer Reports, there's no may about it as they tested 28 brands and found cadmium and lead in all of them. Of course, you then get into the weeds about the exact levels.  But this reminds me of lead in petrol which was quite scandalous before the vested interests were faced down.  There was an ITN nomination about the last country to use leaded gas/petrol -- Algeria iirc.  Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The only mention of this in the article seems to have been there for some time, and is linked to a 2014 paper - there are no edits for months, other than a bot. Did you link the correct article? Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not "breaking news" it's not a big scientific discovery, we've known that chocolate has had lead in it for a long time.  TomMasterReal  TALK 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry? _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose respectfully. This is ITN. Significant current news coverage is generally required for nominations. Also note the article has not been substantially updated in quite some time. This might be better suited for DYK if there is enough for a major update. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one of the sources is from Dec 30, the other is nowhere on the front page of Reuters, it is not even in the top ten stories in its section of Retail News. That is not something many people are likely to have read in the news and to be looking for more information here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "may" DarkSide830 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Potatoes may contain Uranium. Actually, they most certainly do. But do they contain hazardous amounts? No. Same thing here. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 17:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Comet C/2022 E3

 * Support - Interesting news, ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and Support Altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait – The closest approach will be on February 1. It seems like a good plan to post it on that day and not too much earlier. I hope in the meantime, the article will see some more expanding. It feels alright for blurbing, but a bit short. (I have to say that it being nearly 0.3 AU away from us is quite far. Will this be visible without a telescope?) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You know closest approach isn't always best time to see something right? Best night for most of our North Hemisphere readers (comet is above the Arctic) might be Jan 26-27. Assuming you can't see later than midnight (when it's still rising or fucked up by moonlight which starts happening all evening even before half moon this time of year) and taking into account moonlight, when the model says it'd be brightest from Earth if Earth didn't have an atmosphere and how much atmosphere you have to look through. You'd be surprised how far you good see Comet Hale-Bopp but this is no Hale-Bopp. Some people can see it with just their eyes but most first worlders live under nighttime light pollution, the same scattering that makes the sky blue except light bulbs instead of sunlight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that we should probably post it now if we do post it. Now I'm just not entirely sure about the quality of the article and of whether it's visible enough for a listing. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - The article says Feb 1 is when this happens, so we shouldn't be in a rush. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable, it'll be fucked up by moonlight by then. When this happens is actually like Jan 26, assuming you can't wait for it to stop rising before trying to find it which happens after midnight till like the 31st. As 0.28 AU is not close by near-Earth comet standards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - yes - worthwhile news to me as well - if interested, my related Comments re this "Green Comet" (aka "C/2022 E3 (ZTF)") were published earlier in the "NYT" (1/21/2023) at the following => " https://www.nytimes.com/article/green-comet-watch.html#permid=122707240 " - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your "related comment" is compliment to the NYT writer and a link back to Wikipedia? Not particularly relevant for our discussion here. Moreover, a comment on an online newspaper article is not usually considered "being published in" that newspaper. Glad you're excited though :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree - not relevant to the current ITN issue - although related to the "ITN subject" - also yes - the comment may not be published in the "NYT" newspaper - although such comments are published (or perhaps, alternatively, posted?) on the "NYT" internet website - at least, afaik atm - iac - Thanks again for your reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until February 1, the actual date of the closest approach. -- Azpineapple (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to support as per Andrew's comment. Proposing altblurb2 01:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until Feb 1 as suggested above. That would make this ITNC more useful then to remind readers that have the ability to see it to take the opportunity. The "Outbound" section has one unsourced statement but otherwise the article seems to be at quality for that point. 13:38, 2023 January 24‎ User:Masem
 * I don't see a problem with posting it a day or two earlier where there is no chance of falling off the ITN blurbs, but posting now risks that removal. Jan 29 or Jan 30 would make more sense. --M asem (t) 01:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No because the last possible day to see it before midnight without moonlight is about Jan 27 and this is dim enough to need binoculars in moonlight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Don't look up" The people advising everyone to wait don't seem to have read the sources which indicate that the time to view this has already started. The NYT, for example, recommended viewing last weekend as there was a new moon, which makes for darker skies.  Viewing windows, in any case, are tricky because cloud cover often gets in the way.  So, it's best to give people plenty of notice, which is what the MSM is doing. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This ^ - I'm an amateur astronomer, and you can never really be certain when seeing conditions will allow observation of objects like these. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The comet "might get brighter than magnitude 6". It's not visible to the naked eye, except maybe under the most perfect conditions. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Magnitude six objects aren't that hard to see. Sure, you won't see any in light polluted skies, but even moderately dark conditions can allow you to observe them. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it is expected to be brighter than magnitude 6, I believe PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is already brighter than magnitude 6 and visible from dark skies with naked eye. C messier (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for reasons just stated. The date of the approach is the 1st of February, let this wait a bit. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I only just read Andrew's comment about everyone who is saying to wait on it, so changing to Support. If it is currently viewable, then it should be on ITN. Sorry about that. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. It is currently visible from earth! And currently in the news! APOD posted a picture of Comet ZTF three days ago. Today APOD linked to an entire gallery of ZTF pictures. Why wait for the actual day of peak visibility? It won't come around again for 50k years, which I'm assuming is longer than most Wikipedia users' lifespans. My only complaint is some awkward phrasing in the top section of the page, but that's a quick fix. e.b. (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Useful for people who want to see a green comet before it's gone forever.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- if it is visible to the naked eye, which it is at the moment, it should be posted. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting alt2 now and not waiting until Feb 1 because it's viewable now. Seems kinda mean to our readers to wait until later to post this. "Once in a lifetime comet was viewable yesterday..." :-D Levivich (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Original blurb or changing alt2 to say "green comet" is good with me too. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting alt2 now and not waiting until Feb 1 per Levivich. Jusdafax (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "It's not easy being green" Most of the news headlines that I see about this use the word "green" and so this is an especially notable feature of the comet. And the article does a reasonable job of explaining the science of this. The ALT2 blurb seems deficient in this regard and its emphasis on the exact code string for the comet doesn't seem so interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original blurb is optimal. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We're reporting topics in the news, we are not looking for grabbing readers' attention with headlines (eg being clickbait). DYK is perhaps where we have the most "clickbait-y" information and that's why those blurbs are carefully worded to avoid that most of the time. M asem (t) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling it the green comet is just following the sources which all refer to it as such. See WP:COMMONNAME.  For clickbait, see TFA which today features a lurid picture of a naked woman being sacrificed to blood-drinkers! (right).  ITN is no contest as it is running the same picture of Chris Hipkins as it has for 6 days straight now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with green comet is that it is ambiguous and "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME). For example see how many comets are refered as green comets by reliable sources: Comet Machholz, 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova, 46P/Wirtanen, C/2007 E2, C/2014 Q2, 103P, C/2009 R1, comet Lulin, comet Holmes etc. C messier (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A green coma is unusual but not rare. 'Green comet' certainly isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. See also WP:NCASTRO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ITNR. This has not been widely referred to as the 'Great Comet of 2023', nor is it 'clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it', which are the requirements listed on ITNR. At present it's about mag 5.5 - just about visible to the naked eye from a very dark site (no light pollution), but only if you know where to look. The article is correct when it says "most viewers will need binoculars". I've removed the ITNR flag from the nomination template. That doesn't mean we can't post this anyway, but there needs to be something remarkable about the comet to justify doing so. Lots of comets have green emission, so that isn't a distinguishing feature, and nor does it come particularly close to Earth or the Sun. I know this is a slow news period, but I don't see anything exciting here. Readers who are amateur astronomers will already know about this, and those that aren't won't be able to see it. The article is adequate, nothing more. So I won't oppose, but I can't support either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to have been reverted. It would be useful to for me know if this is actually ITN/R or not before deciding whether to support. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Verb tense comment For alt2 with "will make", WP:ITNBLURB says: Blurbs should describe events...in the present tense.—Bagumba (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting the original blurb now This seems notable enough to post, it seems like now would be the best time to post this & the original blurb seems like the best blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ITNR I don't see why this is marked as such, per Modest Genius, so I am switching the flag. I am ambivalent on posting it as well. It is a minor astronomical event, but it is an astronomical event that anyone around the globe can go look for. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: B. V. Doshi

 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, commented here by mistake - I meant to support another nom. Will strike as this indeed needs work. Thanks @Curbon7! The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Several paragraphs are unsourced, so indeed the article is not ready yet. Curbon7 (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lloyd Morrisett

 * Oppose for now Major issues with this one. Tons of unsourced claims in the prose (the Honors and awards section is also mostly unsourced), excessive quotations (WP:OVERQUOTE), and usage of curly quotation marks in a number of spots (MOS:CURLY; this one can also be implicitly dealt with by cutting the number of quotes). Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Álvaro Colom

 * Comment, Any update? Article rolls off ITN/C in a few days and is pretty far from main page ready. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 thanks for reminding me, had a very busy week. I'll get right on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 This weekend I've made an expansion of the article's content, fully sourced with RS. There are some aspects to be polished (references, spelling, typo...) but I think it's ready. Can you take a look at it? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and holistic. Excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings

 * Oppose this, as unlike the Monterey Park shootings, this does not appear to have any racial or hate angle too it (the shooter appears to have been a worker at the site, making it a domestic crime). Also, just because a news story appears on multiple front pages of newspapers does not make it suitable for posting at ITN. M asem (t) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What racial/hate side is there to the Monterey shooting? I thought that went away when it turned out the shooter wasn't white. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a member of a group doesn't automatically rule it out as a hate crime. And it's not limited to whites either. But I agree, it's been ruled out for the Monterey Park one (last I checked).—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had not seen (at the time I posted the above) that the MPark one was dismissed as a hate crime (just being non-white doesn't mean it couldn't be a hate crime). As such I would also consider the MPark shooting a domestic violence case that shouldn't be posted either. M asem (t) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it could only have been white. I was commenting that the claims it was a hate crime vanished at that time. I was subtly and ironically critiquing those who keep jumping to "hate crime". In both cases though, the shooters were closely associated with the places they attacked. In neither case was it terrorism, hate, random, ... Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Interpersonal crimes are typically not significant or even notable. Would need to see evidence that there could be sustained national or regional effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - like the Monterey Park it isn't notable - both are interpersonal crimes, with a relatively low death toll. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb "Eighteen people are killed in two mass shootings three days apart in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if reliable sources are doing the math and reporting on the overall situation as such. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian links it with a recent mass-shooting in Goshen too, "The shooting followed the killing of 11 people over the weekend at a ballroom dance hall in the southern California city of Monterey Park, near Los Angeles. It also comes on the heels of a shooting in California’s Central Valley last week, where six people, including an infant, were killed in the small town of Goshen." There's then some commentary about the frequency of such events, "Other public figures spoke out in shock at the killings, which also mark the nation’s sixth mass shooting just 23 days into the new year. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not as notable as it's aforementioned predecessor, which in and of itself is borderline at best notability-wise. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Oppose Combined Blurb. We should not be posting combined blurbs for events without a specific relationship. This follows for something like "killing of x causes y protests" or "x resigns and is replaced by y". This is not such a situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Page is too stubby at this point. In the meantime, notability for ITN seems premature to determine.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a combined blurb -- exactly like we did in 2019 with the 2019 Dayton shooting and the 2019 El Paso shooting. (see archive) -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was first a standalone blub for El Paso; Dayton was piggybacked later. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, but there's no reason we can't do the same thing here. Well, other than the fact that a bunch of people are going to complain about it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem with combining. Just saying I think it's usually done only after one was already posted first. —Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This demonstrates that, if we start posting such shootings, we'll have a steady stream of them. ITN deals with such general and routine news by having a link to Portal:Current events.  But this is obscured by hiding it under the title for the Ongoing line.  It should be made clearer to the reader so that they see where to go for more current news stories.  The ITN section used to have three such links at the end of the section "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..."  That was much clearer in showing that the blurbs were just the tip of the iceberg. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No we won't. These shootings tend to occur in clusters. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose yet another mass shooting in America. Going to hit 50 before the end of January.  Not newsworthy, not surprising, should really just be a single line in the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb alright, it’s more unusual now I suppose. Propose wording the hook in a way to make it easier to edit it once a 3rd one pops up in a couple days, though. Juxlos (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in such a combined blurb if our two articles describe the relationship between the two shootings. The Moterey Park article currently doesn't mention this new shooting at all, or vice versa. Oppose blurbing Half Moon Bay shooting at all due to quality. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no causality between the events. It's just humans grouping them by time and place at this point. —Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solo blurb. Does not have any particulars that would justify posting compared to larger mass shootings that we do post (e.g. ideology, location, target, etc.). Possible support for a combined blurb since they are in the same state and reliable sources do seem to make the connection, but that would require waiting for the articles to develop in that respect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Personal hostility, not notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solo blub, support combined blurb (alt), changing my !vote on the story below accordingly. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At best, it's a copycat crime. At worst, it's an attempt by humans to try to look for patterns in order to explain bizarre or unusual occurrences.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose no, really not. This is getting out of control. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb this is an interesting turn of events - Azpineapple (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - workplace violence, this actually is relatively common. That it extended to a second crime scene is less common, but not so much that it makes ITN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb Evidence is clear that major news sources are treating this as a major story. The articles are in OK shape (the Monterey Park on is better, but both contain enough extra information beyond the blurb to be worth linking to).  Many of the "oppose" votes don't cite any evidence or discuss article quality, they all amount to "I wish that major news sources didn't treat US mass shootings like they were a major story"; and yet, the news sources do treat them as such, people ARE hearing this story across the news sources, so directing people to the Wikipedia articles on the topic seems like a good idea.  Remember, we don't make the story go away by not linking to it, but we do provide readers with a less useful front page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that between the time of nomination and this message, two more mass shootings happened in the US, killing another 4 people. Juxlos (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Those news items are not nominated, so they are not relevant to this discussion. 2) There is no number 2.  Bringing up irrelevant information distracts from the current discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb Both shootings are getting news extensive coverage. Same state within an unusual brief time period. I also wouldn't oppose including the even more recent shooting in Yakima, Washington in the total death count. All very tragic. Estar8806 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support combined blurb (Alternative blurb I) Both shootings were committed by elderly Asian men, which is extremely rare. It is definitely a connected shooting, because the latter was inspired by the prior. I think this blurb should replace the Antiguan general election blurb, because that country is relatively unknown and it has been up for a couple days now. Alexysun (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't choose what rolls off the list when. What rolls off is the oldest blurb, which is the Benin one. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I change my opinion to oppose having it in any format in the news section at all. Alexysun (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb This makes the most logical sense, as it includes both tragedies which took place in the same state just days apart and affecting the Asian community. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose combined blurb for the avoidance of doubt. There's no causal link between these events other than the frequency with which these events occur.  Linking the two events is in no way encyclopedic, quite the opposite in fact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is true, I now change my opinion to oppose having it in any format in the news section at all. Alexysun (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose combined blurb Neither event is connected, with the exception of both having gunmen that were old Asian men, and were both committed in the state of California. Unless it comes out that the Half Moon Bay shooter was connected to the Monterey Park shooter, either in some kind of ideology, personally, or Half Moon Bay shooter was inspired by the Monterey shooter, then we can consider it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose combined blurb. Nothing to do with each other. You might as well connect the sacking of Frank Lampard and the delivery of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine because both sort of begin with L. Ericoides (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That demonstrates the exact opposite. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Some sources talking on multiple California killings: "California reels from back-to-back shootings that killed 18" (Reuters), "A leader in gun control efforts, California confronts its limits" (The Washington Post), "‘Only in America’: California Grapples With a Mounting Toll of Gun Violence" (The New York Times), "California reeling from back-to-back shootings that killed 24: ‘Too much bloodshed’" (Los Angeles Times), "California tops deadliest month of mass shootings in at least a decade" (The Mercury News) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb per above and this here unsigned comment. DecafPotato (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, now signed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunately, mass shootings are a common occurrence in the US. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 shows 11 events that involved 3 or more fatalities just this month. The equivalent list for 2022 shows approximately 2 mass shootings and 2 fatalities per day. That the country has proven incapable of addressing this epidemic of gun violence is deplorable and an important issue. However there's no sign that this particular shooting will do anything to change that. If/when the US brings in gun control laws, that might be suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok this has been reopened twice now. I would respectfully point out that there are quite a few !votes running at roughly 2:1 against posting. In order to gain consensus, you are going to need an avalanche of new comments with all, or nearly all, supporting. Based on many years of experience, there is no reasonable likelihood of that happening. I would encourage an uninvolved admin to Reclose the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I personally support a combined blurb, I have to agree that this probably isn't going anywhere. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taufikurrahman Saleh

 * Support Well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lin Brehmer

 * Comment one cn tag. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be addressed now. KConWiki (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - CN tag has since been removed. Article is good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Agustí Villaronga

 * Wait. Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced and others are only partially sourced. I think these issues should be fixed first. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Significant number of cn tags. Curbon7 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No updates yet, sadly. Curbon7 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Monterey Park shooting

 * Support but the article is a bit thin at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is, I just expanded it past 1500 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Change blurb. A mass shooting can not kill people. The shooter is what killed people. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed the blurb.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I want to preemptively ask that users conduct themselves with civility when discussing this particular news item. Yes, this is a mass shooting. Yes, it occurred in the United States. Yes, the death toll might be on that precipice of just barely being significant or not significant. Whatever the case may be, I do ask that we avoid hurling invective around regarding how shootings are treated on WP:ITN, or how Americans vs non-Americans view this event, etc.. I hope this is not too large of an ask, particularly for an area which seems to bring out the most toxic of discussions here at ITN/C.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * well, that didn't last long, sadly. See below. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 100%. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This may be a racially-driven shooting, which would elevate it for posting, but right now, it is a typical unfortunate mass shooting in the US, which we typically don't post. Last I read the suspect is still at large so motive will be a ways off from being known. --M asem (t) 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint: this was one of the deadliest mass shootings the U.S. has ever had, happening in the middle of holiday celebrations, and is properly newsworthy for ITN regardless of motive. Further, it's comments like typical unfortunate mass shooting that minimize the impact of U.S. mass shootings, making them sound way more common than they are. These comments infuriate me and I will make no further responses in this section other than regarding article quality in the hopes of keeping this thread civil, per WaltCip's above comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually at present this doesn't rank in the top twenty deadliest shootings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say how high it ranked. Tied for 26th, it was deadly enough to be added to Mass shootings in the United States by deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, they are pretty common by the standards of any other country. There's been 12 mass shootings with 10+ deaths in the US since 2017, an average of two a year. The fact is just that many of the newspapers we use as a standard for coverage are in the US and report on domestic events. AryKun (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to Oppose as any racial hate crime appears to have been dismissed as a reason for this shooting, making it a purely domestic violence case that we don't generally cover on ITN. --M asem (t) 13:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu's counterpoint. Rockin (Talk) 17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately this sort of thing really is far too commonplace. Last year there were 14 mass shootings in the US with combined casualties in the double-digit range.1 Will reconsider if this turns out to be some sort of terrorist related event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of those mass shootings had a double-digit death rate. Don't equate injuries to deaths. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure I wrote "combined casualties." Yep. Just double checked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not act childish. My point is that injuries and deaths are not comparable to each other. A mass shooting where 10 people were killed is worse than a mass shooting where ten people were injured. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thoughts and prayers. 33rd mass shooting of 2023.  Barely scrapes into the top 20 mass shootings in the US of all time.  Hardly relevant, and a common disease. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this sort of thing really is far too commonplace: And some might call all these national leader changes and sports championships "commonplace" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added Altblurb: The WP page and its sources refer to it as "Lunar New Year". Many there would be American, and many not of Chinese descent.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Oft-mentioned ITN topics are global impact and stagnant blurb content. This tragedy affects the Asian diaspora on a major cultural holiday, Lunar New Year, in a city whose majority population is Asian American. A timely page on an ongoing news item at the tops of most international versions of English news sites (I VPNed and browsed in private mode). Oh, and this should meet standards for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, for those who subscribe to the theory.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 33rd mass shooting in the United States already this year. Not encyclopaedically newsworthy in any sense at this time.  Another day, another mass shooting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet, no one proposed posting the 32 other mass shootings. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We keeping blocking these nominations. Ericoides (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any proposed in ITN this year. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who said this year? Last year, the year before, the year before that, usw. Ericoides (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TRM did. Look above. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I TRM? Ericoides (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You did ask "Who said...", not "Did I say..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Ericoides (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre argument. To act like any "mass shooting" (which is a loosely defined word as is) is similar in notability is insane. I live near Philadelphia and basically every day on the morning news is another report of a shooting in the city, many of which involve multiple fatalities. I would not think these events blurb-able, but it's hard to argue such events are even close to as notable as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't mean to, but you reinforced my argument perfectly. Thank you so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every year has a lot of natural disasters and elections. Should we then chose to post none of these? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Muboshgu's counterpoint. Evaxooooof25 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Random crime that has yet to demonstrate any lasting significance. Not convinced that it even meets notability requirements for an article per WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak support As terrible as this is, unfortunately the US has many, many ass shootings a week, but with the amount of people, this may be ITN worthy. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - mass shootings that kill 10 people are uncommon in the US, and this is indeed ITN. This should be posted. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  18:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Another X" applies to just about every nomination. What is your point? —Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See TRM, 23:09. ("Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out. Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic.") That's my/his point. Ericoides (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * not even encyclopaedic would be more credible if these pages were regularly deleted, or even respected if one actually nominatated it for WP:AFD, instead of adding mere innuendo. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details. If we can wait for the future of the NZ PM to become clear then we can wait on the outcome of this mayhem.  But that's then likely to turn into an arrest/trial and so we will have to wait upon a conviction.  Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details: No, the deaths and injuries are quite certain, as is everything else stated in the blurb. Sounds like a WP:POINTy rationale to propose a wait based on an unrelated future resignation announcement. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is full of vague terms like "suspect", "did not specify", "estimated", "possible scene", "reportedly", "appeared to be". I just took another look at the NYT which has a live feed of the current SWAT team assault/siege so this is clearly an ongoing situation.  We're an encyclopedia not a live news feed and so there's no rush.  Let the news media do their job and we can get to it when the details and verdict is clear.  Per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings resulting in multiple deaths are inherently notable. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These happen every day and so we need something more. For an example of enduring notability, see the Tottenham Outrage which is in the OTD section today.  That passes my personal test for enduring notability -- is there a book or movie about it? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how yet another mass shooting in the USA is notable, without any indication that there will long-term notability, like that occurred at Sandy Hook or Kent State. It's almost as if, that if a shooting is notable enough to get it's own article, that a nomination ends up here. In any other country, an event like this would lead to massive changes in gun law. If this finally happens in the USA because of this, then perhaps it would be ITN - but I don't see any indication that it would for this LA shooting. About the same number were killed in a shooting in Utah a couple of weeks ago, and there's been no ongoing coverage. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't think it's notable, nominate it for deletion. If you think it needs "long-term notability" on par with Sandy Hook or Kent State, which can't possibly be determined this early, that shows how off base people's thresholds for posting are. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that if something isn't quite notable enough for ITN, then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia at all, then you shouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one who said you don't see how it's notable. I tend to think that articles on subjects that are "in the news" are appropriate for "In The News", but that's just me. The Kent State shootings had four deaths, and I bet many here would have opposed posting it for not meeting their WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the context that I'm discussing ITN, and not something else. And beyond context, I actually used the ITN acronym in my comment. Not that I support MINIMUMDEATHS, but presumably it would be quantified differently back then. There were only 3 incidents in the preceding decade in that country where more victims were murdered at Kent State. Heck, there were only 3 incidents in the preceding TWO decades! Heck, you have to go back to the 1920s, to find a significantly higher number of incidents - and most of those were white Americans massacring blacks, or labour unrest. So I disagree that there'd be many opposing it for not meeting Minimum Deaths; also it was particularly noteworthy, as it's the first time in that nation that the military was used to murder peaceful white protesters. Similarly the 1985 aerial bombing by police in Philadelphia didn't have a particularly high death toll (9), but the way that police mass murdered the victims would have made that noteworthy. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of anything in the news being appropriate for ITN, looking at the local state broadcaster, things that rank higher than this currently are Tik-tok cybersecurity concerns, ChatGPT, AI Chatbot, vehicular impaired driver restrictions, and the invasive species Phragmites australis subsp. australis. Which ones should I nominate User:Muboshgu? Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominate what you want, as OTHERSTUFF arguments are unhelpful and each nomination should be considered on its own merits. And what the U.S. was like 100 years ago isn't relevant to how it is now, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an OTHERSTUFF argument. It's an indication of just how insignificant this event is, even in neighbouring countries, that media coverage is already vanishing. Yeah, it will be in the national papers here tomorrow, but there'd unlikely be ever a mention of it afterwards, unless there are some unexpected developments. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant.  Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The mass shooting, one of California’s worst in recent memory, has left Angelenos — and the nation — struggling to make sense of the violence."—Los Angeles Times. —Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it was motivated by an ideology. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba. Seems callous to skip this when a darts competition gets a rubber stamp. Zagal e jo (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That speaks more to the lacking notability of the darts than the notability of this event, and either way that's a discussion for the ITN criteria talk page, not here. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Awwww we replaced the boat race with darts in regards to this argument? Forget 10+ Americans dying due to gun violence, 50+ brown people dying on disasters is still enough enough while we allow darts to get a free pass. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have me incorrectly measured. I support an ITN sports cleanup and darts would be one of the items most clearly on the chopping block. Again though, this is not the place to discuss this though. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment the sheer ignorance of people attempting to compare this commmonplace event in the good ol' US of A (33rd mass shooting of 2023) with a sports event which is on the ITNR listings is a clear demonstration that we should probably seek a minimum threshold of WP:CIR for people who "vote" here. Ridiculous.  Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out.  Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic.  "Man in country full of guns uses gun to kill to kill other people with loads of guns".  Derisory. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you took WaltCip's admonition to heart. (sarcasm) Don't be rude or insult people by saying they're not competent to vote here. This was exactly what WaltCip was warning all of us about. Anyway, no, mass shootings that kill 10+ people are not "commonplace" in the US, even if they do take place far more often than they should. The last mass shooting that took place in the US that was posted here was Uvalde, and the last mass shooting that killed more than 10 people in the US was also Uvalde. That there were 32 other mass shootings in the US this year is irrelevant, we didn't post them and no one proposed to post them, because they were not notable enough for ITN. This isn't a "non-story", and I'm tired of these false comparisons. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest you take a break. The very fact you're telling me "the last mass shooting that killed X" is the very reason it's a non-story.  Get a grip Rockstone, you need to grow up and stop trying to convert this Wikipedia to US-shooting-events-pedia.  It's grim reading every time some nutbar in the States uses his second amendment rights to shoot up a load of people.  Thank goodness this time it wasn't kids.  But all we do when we publicise this crap is encourage more stupidity from gun-wielding maniacs who have the blessing you lot.  Weird, but not encyclopedic, not enduring, just sadly tragic.  One day you'll realise that.  The rest of the world looks on in total abject pity for your situation. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever the Olde Englishe means it doesn't include murder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you have GOP "elected representatives" in Amurica saying "If you hear Democrats fantasizing about banning a specific type of firearm, run to your nearest gun show and buy one to find out what they don’t want you to own." That's enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:NOTFORUM applies to this page, kindly stop abusing the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so stop trying to justify this kind of non-story. So a few more people have been shot to death in America, it's not encyclopedic in any sense.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No your opinions on American politics are of no relevance to literally anything about this page, and of interest to likely nobody else on this page. Your dismissal of ten people being killed would, in any sane administration, get the same treatment something like this eventually got. But youre too popular here for that to ever happen, at least among a cohort of old-timers, and you know that, so you abuse this page with impunity. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @TRM Comments like this are what make it obvious to most people that you have only a thin veneer of actual sympathy for victims of gun violence, and mostly just seem to enjoy using our tragedy as a fun little bludgeon against your wiki-enemies. So fuck clean off with your fake fucking sympathy and 'outrage', from the people who actually have to live with the horror of having loved ones die to this, and do their best to stop it from happening again. I've read too many of these snide little comments to let this one slide. The deaths of our family members might be a fun little game to you to hit back at all the people who annoy you here, but they're real to us. Parabolist (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So much for civility. Also try WP:AGF. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, we entered into WP:PACT territory somewhere in the last dozen times he made these sort of snide, gross "Oh, are the little Amurricans shooting each other again? Yawn. It's your own fault, you know." whenever a tragedy like this occurs. I'm done. Parabolist (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're strange . This isn't a forum for you to berate me about my personal feelings of gun violence.  In civilised countries, we have had outrageous gun crimes, and then we fix the situation.  In the US, there are multiple outrageous gun crimes every day, week, month, year. Nothing changes there. I have sympathy for the dead and their families, but the abject stupidity and "thoughts and prayers" bullshit means we're all somewhat done with "gun crime" blurbs in an encyclopedia.  This isn't US Wikipedia, this isn't guncrime Wikipedia. Y'all object to a bomb killing a few dozen Afghans but hell, if a dozen Americans get shot, it's *so important*.  Get a grip, wake up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for you to share your personal feelings about gun violence. Im glad you recognize your earlier thoughts and prayers was bullshit though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man Did you ever stop to think why I may have taken your repeated, years long disgusting posturing so personally, before responding by once again claiming your bizarre higher ground. I'm responsible for bombing Afghans now? I'm not sure you want to really start adding up historical war crimes. My point is that people on this website have skin in the game, and while it's fine to oppose this on notability grounds, to take the tactic and make the comments you have is gross, puerile, and unbefitting of anyone outside of a child. So go ahead, lay the blood of a dead loved one at my doorstep, I'm led to understand someone was rude to you about your rowing article. You deserve to let off steam. Finally, I think the world has enough of the British calling other countries "less civilized" for a lifetime. Parabolist (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that I did send out a plea for civility, although I also realize that perhaps TRM has some reason to be gruff given the goings-on at the ITN talk page. I'd say just let it be for now and not try to escalate a further argument. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wee bit childish, innit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with the talk page. The constant claims for mass shootings in America are even more tedious than the constant claims to dismiss the Boat Race.  Grow up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eventually, someone is going to bring your behavior to WP:ANI. You should stop being verbally abusive. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support the second altblurb I just added because it sounds easier to read, in my opinion. Nythar  (💬-❄️) 23:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * is 10 deaths the new threshold because you don’t post 10 deaths massacres in other countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.242.226 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Name a ten death massacre from another country that wasn't posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be a devil's advocate, I think we have not posted suicide bombings that have killed 10 people from countries where they are common. Although that's not because of notability, but because the articles are too stubby. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "name a ten death massacre from another country that wasn't posted", User:Muboshgu. We've discussed in detail previously that there's a lot of 100-person massacres that aren't being posted. That you are suggesting that all 10-death massacres in other countries are posted just demonstrates how out-of-touch many Americans are with the world outside their borders! Here's some examples from last year - May 2022 Madjoari massacre (50 dead in Mali), 2022 Bankass massacres (132 dead in Mali), Gimbi massacre (over 500 in Ethiopia), Hpakant massacre (over 80 dead in Mynanmar), Celaya massacre (11 people in Mexico), Las Tinajas massacre (20 people in Mexico), 2022 Soweto shooting (16 people in South Africa), 2022 Seytenga massacre (over 100 in Burkina Faso), May 2022 Anambra State killings (14 people in Nigeria), Aïgbado massacre over 65 people in Central African Republic, Akwaya massacre 25 people in the Cameroons, Nogolait shooting 11 people in Indonesia. And that's just 2022! I could go on and on and on. Though, I'm hard pressed to find any examples from mostly English-speaking countries - perhaps that's what you are thinking User:Muboshgu? Sure, some are stubby, but some are very good, and even got nominated. I'm not sure why you are trying to push a false narrative. Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ...just demonstrates how out-of-touch many Americans are with the world outside their borders! Is ITN about nationalism? —Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the reasons that Americans make so many nominations for regular events. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems presumptuous to assume that it's only Americans. —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. While my country does have a serious issue with gun violence, I don't buy the argument that just because mass shootings are commonplace that means the most deadly ones aren't notable enough for ITN. This shooting had a casualty count equal to the second-deadliest shooting of 2022. Davey2116 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet we don't post shootings for some countries where hundreds are dead. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Celaya massacre and Vila Cruzeiro shootout for 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.242.208 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Celaya massacre would have had trouble getting posted as it is a stub. Vila Cruzeiro shootout could have been posted based on length and quality (based on a quick glance). The problem is that I see that neither of them were nominated. This is a problem related to systemic bias and I do not know if they would have been posted if they were nominated (and in Celaya massacre's case, nominated and expanded). But I probably would have supported them both. We need more nominations for articles like these. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why being commonplace or routine is a reason not to post mass shootings. Sporting events are also routine, yet we post many of them on a recurring basis, some of them annually such as the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and Premier League. Sure, the result might not be known ahead of time, but the location and time of a mass shooting is also not known ahead of time. Mass shootings that kill 10+ people happen on average once or twice a year; if we think that the topic of mass shootings in general is as important and newsworthy as 1-2 domestic sports leagues, then we should be posting routine mass shootings. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There were shootings last year where over 100 were shot - and not all were even ITN. Let alone small shootings like this, User:King of Hearts. I'm not sure why you claim that shootings that kill 10+ only happen once or twice a year! Once again, this nomination is highly centred around a single country. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because 1) Shootings that kill 10+ in the US DO only happen once or twice a year. 2)"Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two in 2022, two in 2021 (6 over 7!), three in 2019 (18 over 5!) - some of which got posted, 4 in 2018. Not surprisingly, 2020 was down because of the Covid restrictions, etc. I really don't think two to four postings a year from a single country is necessary. The issue isn't me, the issue is that frequent, and expected, events shouldn't be here, unless there's some other factor (such as a hate crime). And it's really not about 10, per se, we've posted a lot lower than that, for that country. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked through last year's ITN/C archives, and could not find any nomination of a shooting with 100+ deaths. I did find Izhevsk school shooting (18 deaths) and Las Tinajas massacre (20 deaths), which failed to be posted due to quality and then staleness. But failing to get posted for reasons other than significance does not say anything about our threshold for significance; I don't see any opposition on those two candidates on the basis of significance. We did, however, post 2022 Buffalo shooting (10 deaths); I think 10 is a good cutoff since otherwise we're just randomly crystal-balling about "lasting impact" when often that is not apparent in the week immediately following the event. As for as my aggregate statistics, I could not find a global list of mass shootings, so I was going off of List of mass shootings in the United States. But I think it is fair to compare a single-country mass shooting list to the domestic leagues of that country (especially for a sport played almost exclusively in that one country). -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even worse that some of the 100+ weren't nominated! Surely that goes even further to my position that nominations are unnecessarily American-centric.But hang on User:King of Hearts, the 400+ person WP:In the news/Candidates/June 2022 weren't nominated, but were mentioned in opposition to WP:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2022, where a killing of TWO white people people was posted! We have huge WP:BIAS issues here. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, no one opposed over significance. Why did you not support the Gimbi massacre / nominate the Bankass massacres when you had the chance? In any case, while we definitely have a Western bias from a global perspective, we also have an anti-American bias from a Western perspective. There's no chance a shooting of 2 people in the US could possibly be posted. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that an appropriate question, User:King of Hearts? If you must know, if you look at my editing history, there's a 10-day or so gap during the time Gimbi was posted. I had Covid, which caused a blood clot in my leg, and wasn't doing much of anything! Also, I don't do nominations ... it's just not my thing. Though I'll certainly add to a deficient article. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Per Muboshgu above, article of adequate quality.  Spencer T• C 04:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lasting significance has of this event has not been established here or in the article and unless this turns out to be a racially motivated crime, so it will remain. This is not a place to compare such unexpected events with ITNR items, appropriate forums for which exist. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What would make a racially-motivated crime more significant than say, for example, one that is tied to mental illness? —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We have somewhat of a precedent with that in the posting of the Buffalo shooting last year and such events being treated as terrorist events does raise their notability further. Gotitbro (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect if hate-motivated would make it more significant for you. However, there's no general rule to not post non-hate crime related shootings though. —Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Shootings in domestic violence (such as the Louisiana bar gun fight from this weekend that injured ten) are things that are routine news items that WP should not be covering under WP:NOTNEWS (its why Wikinews exusts). I am not saying this one is similarly a routine shooting (motive yet determined) but it could possibly be such. Lately we kas a whole not just ITN) have become sloppy with understanding the line between encyclopedia content and simply news coverage. M asem (t) 20:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. Just don't cite WP:NOTNEWS, which applies to pages, not blurbs in a section  literally titled "In the news". —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This has made front page on the BBC, The New York Times, RTÉ, Rappler, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, The Straits Times, El País, The Guardian (UK edition), The Guardian (International edition).  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not seem to be a major enough news item in the US. A grim-ish indicator if this is significant enough to warrant attention could be whether it has been included in The Onion's "No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens repeating article, and this has not even been included. Juxlos (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just add List of mass shootings in the United States to ongoing? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No for the same reason we don't add Crime in Brazil or Mexican drug war. Juxlos (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or Crime in Chicago. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just link ITN solely to Life. —Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Human nature, specifically, we ignore "things". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For lots of routine violent deaths, you want the list of ongoing armed conflicts. This incident is quite minor by comparison.  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With 45,000 deaths a year, it qualifies as a major ongoing armed conflict. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we going to see a support from you now? The Onion  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: If this happened in a country where mass shootings are rare, would it be an ITN? If so, then what makes it an ITN? Was it "a coincidence that it happened during Chinese New Year when people were celebrating the holiday, but it was marked by a mass shooting incident" or "a shocking incident in the country that rarely happened before?" If reason 1, I support, if reason 2, this event does not qualify.--(Sorry, I use google translate)--Rang Djambak (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a data point, 5 killed at a Christmas market in France got posted. —Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be a pity if someone had to kill 20-30 people in a US mass shooting before ITN was interested in covering it. Insisting on a hate motive also creates an unrealistic barrier.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2. I have seen no sourcing/citation issues and the article looks well-written too. Although mass shootings have become (sadly) commonplace in the U.S., I do think this is still ITN worthy, not [only] because of the death toll and the potential motive/s but mainly because it is in the news and has been covered by a lot of major news sources (to name a few: BBC, CNN, The Guardian, ABC News, TIME, and Al Jazeera). The event looks to be pretty significant as well; the President has already ordered flags at federal government properties to be flown at half-staff. I know that some would say that this is too American-centric; however, I think most, if not all of the ITN blurbs right now are focused on their respective countries, instead of being an international issue/news. Thus, I think that this is okay to be posted: after all, none of the current ITN entries are from the U.S. (aside from some that are in the RD section). For the blurb, I prefer altblurb2 as that looks to be the one that is easiest to read. Vida0007 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This discussion and the nominations on gun violence in the U.S. are truly exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * per above: There's numerically more support's than oppose's. Anyhow, see WP:PERX.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yet another mass shooting in the US. Sad and deplorable, but not really news. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to support combined blurb with Half Moon Bay (see below). The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks solid and detailed for this type of subject matter. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Continuing to support this. Article looks really good and nicely put together. Good representation of our quick encyclopedic coverage of mass shootings. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support What's really sad and deplorable is when something that is by itself obviously newsworthy somehow no longer becomes news just because it comes on the heels of many other similar instances. That's just bonkers and if you think about it, applies just as much to Sportsman X wins yet another competition in Sports Y, or Politician X wins yet another election in Country Y, or just about 99% of the "news"... Let's do away with the tedious objections, please. Why can't we assess this article/incident according to its own merits? KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Most mass shootings in the US don't attract much media coverage and never get Wikipedia articles or get nominated at ITN. This however is clearly in the news due to the number of deaths and the fact that it occurred at a Lunar New Year festival. Article quality is fine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC
 * Weak Support - While noting that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist, prior precedence in terms of posting U.S. mass shootings finds that although a death toll of 10 is usually insufficient for posting, an item in that range is more likely to be posted in that range if there are specific surrounding circumstances that make it noteworthy. The 2022 Buffalo shooting was cited as a prime example of that. So if we went off of past consensus, this story barely falls within that discretionary range which would make it postable. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Error I just took another look at the article and noticed an immediate WP:REDFLAG, "It is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of Los Angeles County". It then took little time to find a counter-example: the Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871 in which 11+ Chinese were shot to death and then lynched.  I'm not planning to join the scrum of editors jostling over the article but give it here as an example of the quality issues you can expect with breaking news based on journalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. And old pages have errors too, and likely even new pages that you've supported. Yes, surprising. —Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I say this every time, I am utterly saddened by the loss of life here and the trauma for friends and family that follow that. But that doesn't mask the fact that shootings in the US are routine, and will seemingly remain so until someone gets a proper hold of the gun issues. There are too many of these per year to post them all, and this one is only really separated from others by a slightly higher death count. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really have to push back on this routine argument. Some deadly shootings in the United States are routine. Indiscriminate mass killings are very much not routine in the United States. Mass shootings involving gangs and families, yes, that happens on such a regular basis that it would overwhelm ITN to post them. But mass indiscriminate killings by guns are not routine in the United States. And the mantra that they are is false. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This shooting was not indiscriminate as it seems that the culprit had a long history of attending this place and was known for his hostile attitude to others there. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just mean the person shooting did not know his victims. Most shootings in the US are carried out by family and acquaintances. These public mass shootings of strangers are not routine. And that is why they are so widely covered when they happen. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are widely covered because, well of course they are. And such shootings are routine when compared to the rest of the world, bar possibly a few countries involved in serious political violence. There were eight such events with a death toll of 5 or more where the shooter did not know their victims in 2022, for example.  Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Take out the gang violence ones as well, those never get this wall to wall coverage. But the others, Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and Colorado Springs all merited posting IMO. Sure, routine compared to the rest of the world, but I didnt know that was the yardstick to measure by. We have users saying this is the 30th this year, and that is just not true. 4 in a year is not routine IMO, and the argument that by including four blurbs about mass killings would turn ITN in to a crime blotter for a gun obsessed nation is likewise not true. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say that 30 is correct or not, but the problem is the "mass" part of a "mass shooting" is nebulous in definition. I'm guessing that the low bar being used here is 2, but either way there is an issue with a sentiment that seems to be present that because some number of people are killed in shootings with frequency that any number of deaths in one does not matter. I can understand one desiring a number beyond 11 to consider the shooting ITN-worthy, but it seems like some have chosen to unilaterally oppose any such nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its correct for all shootings that have more than 3 injuries and/or deaths. But the overwhelming majority of those are cases where the shooter knows their victims, either family, friends, co-workers, and gang violence. Those are absolutely common. Chicago, a city I love deeply, had 24 mass shootings in the first 7 months of 2022. Twelve people were killed in those 24 shootings. Mostly as a result of gang violence on the south and west sides of the city. Those are unfortunately extremely common. A little less than once a week in a single city is definitely routine. Highland Park had one. And one person killed eight strangers at a July 4th parade there. Uvalde had one, a school massacre of 22 people. That is not common. It is not common anywhere in the United States for multiple random people to be shot and killed by a stranger. Even in Chicago. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant due to the loss of life and the time and place in which it happened - a state holiday in California. Might as well replace the plane crash article with this, that happened a week ago now and there's been no new developments. Flyingfishee (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Nfitz. I was previously of the mindset of avoiding a direct vote on this one as I prefer to with events like this, but Nfitz did raise an important point about inconsistency in posting certain loss-of-life events (in particular ones that could roughly be described as "killings"). 10 deaths in a shooting is far from "routine" in a shooting even in the US, but it seems this event is dwarfed by countless other such events that happen elsewhere in the world. If we want to counter bias in ITN, recognizing this is a good way to start. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - it looks like there is consensus to post -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - it looks like there is no consensus to post. Ericoides (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 per Vida0007. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - was on the fence about this, and if there had been some evidence of a hate crime then I would have supported, but from what the mayor has said I dont see it here. I dont think the opposes that resemble "boo hoo another American gun killing" should be taken into account here, but I dont think this goes past somewhat notable crime to ITN blurb worthy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The 2023 Beninese parliamentary election has been on ITN for a while & is starting to get crusty. This can replace that. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is a result of a systemic deficiency. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, with only Mexico and Guatemala being in the same boat, so the criteria applied for shootings anywhere else don’t apply to this case. Yes, it’s sad to read that human lives were lost in such incidents, but there’s no excuse when the authorities pave the way for that to happen. Some may argue that it’s difficult to exert constitutional changes, but that shouldn’t be a problem for a country that pretends to be a democracy. Those that could change the constitution are people voted by the electorate in a fair and free election. The indolence of those people to make a change that would save human lives indicates that: 1) most of the people are fine with the status quo, 2) most representatives weigh human lives below the profitability of gun-producing companies, or 3) there is a clear lack of democratic capacity in the country’s institutions to solve a basic problem. However vocal a bunch of Wikipedians may be that all this is tragic and something must be done, they don’t seem to form a representative sample. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the exact type of comment that should be dismissed with prejudice. Nobody cares about your view on if the United States pretends to be a democracy, or your view on if the profitability of gun companies is given greater weight than human lives. The vocal bunch of Wikipedians are the Europeans (no strangers to violence lol) tut-tutting with their air of superiority. I might as well oppose the Ukraine War being in ongoing because European nations slaughtering each other's civilians is routine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think this is a real problem, you should try hard to find a solution. Seeing this posted on the English Wikipedia’s main page will hardly make any difference. In most European countries, if you’re caught possessing a gun without a licence, you’ll most likely get imprisoned, not to speak about protecting that right by constitution. That’s the reason why such incidents are rare. You can try to make this notable as much as you want, but this isn’t a natural disaster that comes totally unexpectedly with huge casualties. It’s merely a consequence of a repeated human error.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have no earthly idea what I do in my life, and you have the purpose of Wikipedia severely misconstrued in your head. This is not a project to promote whatever cause, be it pro-choice or pro-life, gun control vs a freedom to bear arms, or any other topic you can dream up. Your comments here are a blatant violation of WP:NOTFORUM and should be ignored by any closer, and if they continue you should be brought to ANI and be blocked from this page. Of all the things I do not care about about, your views on American politics is at the top of the list. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you feel so inclined, report me and block me, but please don’t threaten me. At least, this is a civil society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This violates WP:NOTFORUM. It should be struck and ignored by whomever determines consensus. Kiril: no one cares about your opinion, it's irrelevant to whether this should be blurbed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve stricken the part that seemed to violate WP:NOTFORUM. The remainder is a clear fact used as an argument to support my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Now that argument (though I disagree with it) no longer is just a polemic. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This is a sad event that should be condemned, and as an Indonesian of Chinese descent, or Chinese-Indonesian, this is a black mark in what should have been a time for celebration. Personally, I found out about this event just after the end of celebrations with my family in Indonesia, and I was shocked to hear the news. Despite this, I concur with DarkSide830 regarding mass shootings outside US, which would be a good start. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI. You were asking about this earlier. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aware, see the other shooting subsection. Juxlos (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Eleven people dead in a shooting not related to gang violence or war-like conditions merits posting, no matter the country and no matter the politics of that country. Khuft (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support US mass shootings with a two-digit death toll happen roughly 1-3 times a year per List of mass shootings in the United States. While it is sick, for ITN purpose I do not consider this too frequent, even 3 times a year - they are typically several months apart and receive enough editor attention for postable shape. Another thing is that by underreporting US mass shootings we're effectively playing into hands of US gun lobby. It is by consistent reporting of such high-casualty shootings that we as an encyclopedia can show the true nature of this problem and perhaps contribute to its solution in the future. Brandmeistertalk  21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't worrying about playing into the US gun lobby be bias? It's not our job to the morality police. Nfitz (talk)


 * That’s an interesting reasoning. I’ve always held the view that the media heed these incidents for two reasons: 1) human lives are equal everywhere no matter the circumstances, and 2) to raise awareness about the shooting problem in the US and ashame the authorities for doing very little to prevent it. Yet, the main problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and shouldn’t be used as such to promote a cause.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ADVOCACY problems aside, we need to keep mind the mass shooting contagion as well, which is more likely than any other action being hoped for by these postings. Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say we would promote a cause if we consistently sweep such shootings under the rug and not report them. By reporting it we are complete, WP:BALANCED and honest rather than by not reporting it. But enough has been written here already... Brandmeistertalk  22:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is "sweeping" anything under the rug. Neither ITN nor Wikipedia as a whole are nor pretend to be a newspaper or any other such reporter of news. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ...more likely than any other action being hoped for by these postings: No, "thoughts and prayers" are at the top. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm lazy to go find the diff but I wrote a long thing around here somewhere once about the difference between "mass" shootings and rampage shootings such as this one, and how rare rampage shootings with double-digit deaths are in the US. The most-recent one was in May 2022. Though even once is too often for something like this, these high-death rampage shootings are decidedly, demonstrably not routine. It's significant, it's in the news, article meets quality requirements, post it. Also, would an admin please issue block/warnings for what some people are writing above. Please. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * this is the diff I think. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you very much! Levivich (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- it definitely seems like there is consensus at this point. Will an admin kindly post this? Thanks. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread seems to me like a textbook example of no consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there are more supports and they have the stronger argument. I imagine a neutral admin would agree. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm pretty sure we haven't posted US random mass shootings previously unless (a) the death toll is huge, or (b) there has been some sort of terrorist (including race/gender/sexuality-related) issue. At the moment, this doesn't appear to be either of those.  It's simply another random mass shooting. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you consider a big enough death toll?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What? We have never *not* posted a mass shooting that killed 10+ (now 11) people. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong; see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2018#(Closed) 2018 Thousand Oaks Shooting 23.242.176.139 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of supports, a couple of opposes due only to article quality at the time. The nominator withdrew the nomination after only a few hours, which wouldn't be advised if we follow the WP:WITHDRAWN guideline principles for deletion. —Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas, it was not Gregorian New Year or a Western holiday. —Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, someone checking ITN not familiar with the fact that it's a dumpster fire might reasonably suspect that the reason we are not posting this is anti-Asian racism. I'm not saying that this is why (we all know that it's because ITN/C is fundamentally toxic and broken), but a random person aware of the mass shooting expecting to see some mention of it on Wikipedia may well think this. It's outrageous that this has not been posted. In particular, it's outrageous that we are allowing the types of comments that are being made in opposition to posting this which violate both NOTFORUM and WaltCip's admonition to be civil above; and finally it's outrageous that there's a double standard here, where we even (inexplicably) posted a mass shooting (if you could call it that) last year that only killed two people in Norway. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe opposition is generally based on "anti-Asian racism", but perhaps one being more (naturally) familiar with their own background and culture. —Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, 100%, it is not at all racism. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't use Wikipedia or is not familiar about the way ITN works. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone expecting anything to be posted is best advised to volunteer to participate and WP:!VOTE. Newbies are welcome. —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not a newbie, just trying to put myself in the shoes of one. :-) -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did not mean to imply that you were, as you have been !voting. —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to sound callous, but as much as the Lunar New Year might be a culturally significant event, I feel like timing really shouldn't make a shooting more significant. I mean, it's not like gun deaths never happen on holidays. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But we did previously  blurb 3 deaths at "a Christmas market" as opposed just writing "a market" or just listing the city alone.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which I daresay was a mistake. There were only six votes at the time of posting, and factoring in post-posting opposes the margain was only 5-3 without a lot of real meaty discussion (One support not noting notability at all, one by a now-banned editor who amended a previous oppose with "Weak Support on second thought, WTF, why not?", and another support per the prior) even for the low number of votes. DarkSide830 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a lower bar if it's not in the US, and one might speculate even moreso if it involves a (Western) holiday like Xmas (and the event was on 11 Dec, not even eve)—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well quite frankly that's an absurd precedent. This is exactly why I opposed this. We shouldn't be weighting less deaths in a country more than more deaths in another, especially when circumstances are comparable. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll >10 is very significant and these are typically posted, as well as this happening on Lunar New Year. Just because large shootings like this are much more common in the US than elsewhere doesn't mean it has less merit of being posted. It is still an evil and outrageous disaster. -Azpineapple (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment re: "too many" There about over a handful of !votes basically opposing only becuase there are too many U.S. shootings. Yes, there are a lot.  But we are not discussing to post all of them, only this one. The others were generally not posted. And this one has unique circumstances: 11 deaths around Lunar New Year. It's irrelevant that there are other non-ITN worthy shootings. It's not in the blurb. A lot of people die.  But we still have occasional death blurbs. We are discussing the merits of this shooting—only. Barring more support, unless a closer sees fit to discount those !votes, this will go as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of these votes (like the one below me) don't actually add anything useful to the discussion, either. Whoever is going to close this, I really hope you will discount the !opposes who don't add anything useful to the conversation (or even worse, make the environment here in ITN even more inhospitable). -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:PERX has been mentioned before: —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the "unique circumstances" have got to do with anything. There are always going to be unique circumstances with any event. The next US massacre, the 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, took place at a mushroom farm. That's unique too, as far as I know. Ericoides (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Judge each one on its own merits. Someone saying it's the 33rd mass shooting doesn't say anything about this specific one, and hints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per The Rambling Man. TheScrubby (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I would support this article being mentioned for ITN on the grounds that the article get expanded which means waiting until new information gets out over a day or two. Given that there was another mass shooting within two days. I'd suggest mentioning both incidents.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Tone gave me permission to revert the closure. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not let things take their course? You seem determined to insist there is a consensus for support when as I and others have pointed out, no such thing exists. Half of your comments on here at least are of the form, "What I want to happen simply has got to happen"! Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like they went and directly filed at Administrator review. They asked the closer, and they agreed. This is running its course. —Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. 12 deaths is well-within the so-called "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS" discretionary zone. The circumstances here (Lunar New Year, multiple locations, public reaction, international reaction) would push it over the edge in my opinion. There's also the possiblity of having a combined blurb with the Half Moon Bay shooting in the same state since reliable sources are making that connection. The oppose !votes about this just being another mass shooting are missing the difference in scale between this and most mass shootings. Per List of mass shootings in the United States,1-2 occur daily, but since 2000 there have only been 26 shootings with 10+ fatalities, (21 if excluding perpetrators), or about 1-2 a year. The oppose !votes that mention how similar or worse events in other countries dont't get blurbed, do have a point, but the issue there typically isn't a different standard, but systemic issues around a lack of nominations, familiarity with non-English sources, and prompt updates, not with ITN !voters. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above discussion on the Half Moon Bay shooting has developed into a situation where most (more like all) !voters oppose the posting of that event on its own, but some are willing to support a blurb which combines that shooting and this one. Accordingly, I move my above oppose !vote into the support combined blurb column. I suggest re-closing this discussion, as it's pretty clear that consensus seems currently difficult to develop, and users who supported this nomination, or would support a combined blurb, would be able to express their opinion on the above discussion. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately the shooting nominated above seems to defeat the argument made by some that these kinds of shootings really aren't that common at all in the U.S. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're in a desert and it rains two days in a row, would you conclude that it's not a desert? Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably the most misguided attempt to post mass shooting blurbs I've ever seen. American mass shootings is not equivalent to rain in a desert, and the likelihood of people owning guns and shooting other people in America is known to be off the charts high since hundreds of mass shootings occur in that country every year. Levivich, you've destroyed any kind of standing you had here with such a stupid comparison.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that this desert is not so desert. Nor jungle, but people have an umbrella in their house. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you get 1-2 hurricanes per year and a steady drizzle ever single day, then yeah. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The shooting nominated above is nothing like this. You only get these ignorant arguments about commonality if you ignore what actually happened. The shooting above is a case of workplace violence. That is common. That is not the same as this one. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much difference between shooting up the place you work, compared to shooting up the place you frequently dance, User:Nableezy. Both are non-random. Both are personal. Both would be mental illness (surely). Both involved guns. Both were in the same state. What are you seeing as the big difference? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The targets are not random at work, the person doing the shooting knew his victims. If the person who killed 11 people at the dance hall knew his victims then Id say that would fall under the more common bucket of murders we have in the US. I wish that hadnt been nominated tbh, because even though I weakly opposed this nom I think nominating what actually is fairly commonplace gave the "this is routine" crowd a leg to stand on. But mass murders of multiple strangers is still not common or routine in the United States. Half Moon Bay is not that. There were 17,865 workers killed in a workplace homicide in the US between 1992 and 2019. More than one a day over the span of decades is indeed routine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose combined blurb for the avoidance of doubt. Nothing encyclopedic connects this shooting with the "yet another" shooting that occurred the next day other than the freedom of access to weapons and the underlying problem of gun control in America. Maybe put the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 in ongoing?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support the proposal to put List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 in ongoing. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a newsworthy topic to be posted to the In the News section. The frequency of something happening doesn't really affect its newsworthiness. Celebrities die all the time, but nobody really ever uses the "yet another celebrity death" rationale for opposing. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment And still in the news today:  —Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely absent from The Guardian (World) website today. Ericoides (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As Im sure you were diligently checking to report as soon as it fell off, the fact that it took 4 days to stop being covered in another country should indicate its newsworthiness and notability to any good faith editor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case you assume wrong. Sorry! Ericoides (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Event is notable as clearly described throughout above discussion – "rampage shootings" aren't the same as other "mass shootings", they are rare and uncommon, which clearly makes this event notable enough for ITN. Happily888 (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Classic "today’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chip papers". Gone and forgotten already, as with almost all of these self-imposed crimes. Not news. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While this was certainly ITN worthy five days ago, this event seems to have not received recent news coverage, or at least substantial enough for ITN. It’s kind of unfortunate we couldn’t get consensus sooner, but seeing how late this is, I just don’t see it as notable enough anymore, sadly. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN only says: There are multiple blurbs still on the MP that are older than this. —Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we've had a bit of a filibuster here. Someone in the US is going to have to kill dozens of people to get featured in ITN.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or save hundreds. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Simon Dunn

 * Not yet ready A few CN tags. Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Happily888 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - CN tags have been addressed. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The quality is good enough and it's properly cited. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is a currently active admin able to post this? This will be archived from the candidates page in about 20 minutes? Happily888 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, just in time! Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago's new President

 * Oppose on quality, very weak support on notability. Target articles are stubs, I can semi-justify supporting on notability due to precedence but the President appears to only have very nominal/symbolic powers. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kip. I would fully support if we had a quality article to highlight on the main page.  The current article on the new President is shockingly light on details for someone who is the head of state of an independent nation, and the election article is similarly light on prose.  If we want to post either article on the main page, some major work on expanding the articles is called for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently 1641 B readable prose size, but most of the body is more or less repeated text from the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to support but it really is like 800 characters of prose repeated twice as Bagumba points out. If it had twice as much well-cited prose, I'd support. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clytus Gottwald

 * Support Appears to be holistic and well-cited; a source spot check checked out. Excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gwen Knapp

 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I supported this earlier but my vote got deleted. When the nom above was added.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stella Chiweshe
Support Thanks for nominating this. I learned about the mbira when I visited Zimbabwe! The article is good, too (I think). -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * welcome to itn/c, ! i believe editors here generally require discography entries to be reliably sourced.  (also, i assume the quotation mark used in one of the discography entries is misplaced.)  i'd also recommend mentioning only the longest alias in the introductory parenthetical, and moving the other two to a footnote, but that's just a personal preference.  article looks pretty good otherwise, especially compared to how it was before you updated it.  dying (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much @Dying I've referenced the discopgraphy now. However, I don't usually work on musicians so another pair of eyes to the reliability of the sources would be wonderful. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * MusicBrainz is a WP:USERGENERATED source, but the other discography sources look good. Joofjoof (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * support. i'm admittedly also not very familiar with reliable music sources, but will trust Joofjoof's judgement.  dying (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - long enough. Recent death. Sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems long enough, adequately/sufficiently sourced. Sources seem ok too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support College and worldbeat radio staple in the 1990s (when I was tuned in to that world), probably beyond as well, no notability concerns, and article is a good introduction to her life and work. Penny Richards (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sal Bando

 * It's better now. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and holistic. As usual, excellent work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nano Riantiarno

 * Support - Sourced. And long enough. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The documentary about his life "Gesturing Notations (Catatan Tanpa Selesai)" is mentioned in the lede but not elsewhere in the article.  Spencer T• C 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed the issue Spencer cited and added the missing citation. Article is now well-sourced and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harunata

 * Support - Recent death. Sourced. Long enough. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Peruvian protests

 * Oppose The last update was literally from yesterday with a 10,000 person protest. Curbon7 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unlike the Mahsa Amini protests, these are definitely still occuring in a large scale. As Curbon pointed out, yesterday alone there was a 10,000-strong protest. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * oppose per Curbon7. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:1878:C264:3341:DF85 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's still quite a bit of media coverage on the protests, and, as, again mentioned by Curbon, they're still happening at a large scale. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The linked article has covered events from nearly every day in the past week. That's literally a textbook definition of an article that qualifies for an "ongoing" link.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It’s still definitely a large thing going on, many media outlets still covering it, and still large scenes of the protest, unlike the Mahsa Amini protests. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Still ongoing. Simple.BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Brahim Ghali re-elected

 * Oppose: no significance even in the region this territory is situated. We need to stop prioritizing political articles over all other classes of articles. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How does it not have significance in the region the territory is situated in? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This has some significance in Western Sahara itself, but this was not even a top-10 news story in, say, Tunisia, when it happened. It has very limited impact. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. The Congress didn't happen in Tunisia, but in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria, where they've been the top story in Sahrawi press (see ECSaharaui or the Sahrawi Press Service. As linked, it was mentioned and covered by the press of other neighbouring countries.
 * I think that POLISARIO getting a competitive race in the middle of a war and it having a mandate to further escalate the war is relevant enough. Maybe not in your home region, but it does affect the Maghreb region and recently Morocco-EU relations. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as said by @Colipon Vriend1917 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose That Polisario Front is something I've never heard exists. As such, it might be important for others in my boat to read. But the lack of citations could mean we're all learning a bunch of bullshit. Fix those up and we'll see. But it's not going to be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You not hearing about it doesn't mean it's less important. Wikipedia is currently showing elections in Antigua and Barbuda and Benin, why not one in Western Sahara especially when it has done a significant change for the political situation of said country? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was less important than anything, I said it seemed interesting and needs more citations for verification. Antigua and Barbuda's elections made for the most boring story I've ever read, but the article didn't have an orange tag. Orange means bad, so far as educational values go. Anyway, can you elaborate on this "significant change for the political situation"? It seems vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. What do you exactly mean by orange tag in this context?
 * 2. The Congress has given a mandate to the newly-elected president to "intensify the armed struggle" (unprecedented language since 1991) in the first Congress after the ceasefire was broken in Western Sahara in 2020, apart from being a competitive race for the first time ever in the country (the president also got the lowest score ever obtained by a winner).
 * 3. The Congress has got decent coverage in Western Sahara, Morocco (which is far from friendly towards Polisario), Algeria, Spain and Mauritania. It has also been covered by big-sized African media such as Jeune Afrique or Africanews and bigger international one such as RFI or EFE. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll need some time to wrap my head around that. Meanwhile, the orange tag is the box before the article starts, saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It's not a good sign. It's also not technically the target article, which seems to work as a loophole sometimes. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that orange box in this article, and I've got it for others ^^'' Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd linked the article I'm talking about above, but it was easy to miss. Polisario Front. Can't miss it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, the article I want to be nominated isn't Polisario Front (which will never get rid of that due to the constant Moroccan vs Sahrawi edit wars), but the 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front. Polisario has enough literature to write books about it (I already have some in my shelves) and it's a national liberation movement that's recognised by the UN. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, intentionally or not, you've proposed two blurbs containing a link to that article. If it wasn't central to understanding what Brahim Ghali did here, I'd say just unlink it. But people who don't know the bookshelves you do are probably going to want that for background first. This nom is doomed, I think, though it was nice meeting you and opening my eyes to a world I've mostly just thought of as sand till now. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough, POLISARIO Front being linked isn't necessary for the blurb. I get the "Western Sahara is just empty sand", but if it was only that then it wouldn't be at the centre of who knows how many diplomatic crisis between Morocco and X countries. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Question Since the SADR is a state that’s recognized by 45 UN members & is a member of the African Union, would this fall under ITN/R? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm very conflicted on this story. On one hand, I think an election for a head of state is notable, but on the other hand, this is a partially recognised state which doesn't get too much coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has got decent coverage in Sahrawi, Spanish, Moroccan, Algerian, Mauritanian and pan-African media, apart from being carried by press agencies such as RFI. I do think it's a bit more relevant than the Antiguan election tbf ^^'' Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Weak Support, I guess there's a good argument for notability here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The ITN/R on elections of heads of state never had consensus and I do not regard it as legitimate. Why are we always prioritizing heads of state and heads of government? A CEO leaving one of the top American tech firms is probably more consequential (and newsworthy) than a change of government in most of the world's sovereign states, let alone a mere continuation of a specific incumbent. Why do we prize political leaders more than other subjects? I don't get it. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you feel the heads of state ITNR is illegitimate, please start a discussion on WT:ITN to remove and/or validate it. But until that happens, we assume that that ITNR is legitimate. M asem (t) 15:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, can you please find me the diffs or collective discussion where it was originally established as consensus that head of state/government changes and elections in all sovereign states automatically qualify as ITN/R? I have attempted to find this myself many times but could not find in our archives. For such an important rule there should at least be a paper trail on how the rule was first established. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a sign of my goodwill, linking you to my original good faith efforts at reaching consensus with other editors from ten years ago. I spent an untold amount of time attempting to 'reform' this framework back in the day. :) Colipon+ (Talk) 16:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That there was no resulting consensus either way from that discussion implies that the status quo (that is, keeping the ITNR item on elections) should remain. I agree that there was probably no RFC-type consensus where it was originally added to the list - several of ITNR items are like this - so it is fair to ask the simple question "Is there support for the election allowance on ITNR?" as to remove it. If that has consensus, then elections would be removed. If not, then that RFC would likely be established as the reference discussion for including elections. That's how we've been handling other ITNRs that have no clear discussion where they were allowed but have been on the list seemingly forever. M asem  (t) 20:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose whether you subscribe to the logic of "this was not clearly overturned in previous discussion so it remains part of ITNR" vs. "this was never clearly established as consensus in the first place so the rule itself is illegitimate" is honestly a matter of interpretation and personal preference. I'm not going to insist I am right, only that I hold this view myself and have good reason for it. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm making no judgement as to whether this is ITN/R or not - it seems highly newsworthy in its own right. And if edit-warring around SADR topics means they're always flagged, and that means they can't be bold links on the homepage, doesn't that worsen our systemic bias? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles about all manner of people and things, from all walks of life, that don't let edit warring stand in the way of citing paragraphs at least once at the end. Two entirely distinct core policy issues. Since yesterday, I sympathize with these rebels' plight more than ever, but we're not about to start holding the Polisario Front's en.wiki article to a different quality standard than David Crosby or Gina Lollobrigida's simply because they've had a harder time finding acceptance in the wider Western zeitgeist. Get good, all articles what dare enter here! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose SADR/Polisario Front is an ethnic liberation movement that controls less <25% of the territory they claim - the majority of the land they claim is governed by Morocco. Additionally, SADR is a government in exile based out of Algeria, and this election took place in a refugee camp in Algeria. I do not think this counts as ITN-worthy for two reasons:
 * 1. Whether or not Ghali is a head of state is contentious, but he is definitely the leader of a nationalist/separatist movement, and to the best of my knowledge ITN has never before posted change of leadership (or re-election) for a nationalist/separatist movement.
 * 2. The situation in Western Sahara is far too complicated to sum up in 1-2 sentences. I don't think either of the blurbs fully cover the situation, as they both exclude SADR's status as a government in exile and the location of the voting in Algeria. The page for the 16th Congress needs significant expansion and improvement in order to provide adequate context. e.b. (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He is the head of a state that's internationally recognised by at least 45 countries and the African Union. The article covers both concerns you said about the government-in-exile and the vote being held in Algeria (and it being a first provoked by the war, as they're usually held in Tifariti). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the reasons laid out by Ebacas. I think for a state like Somaliland or Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus (i.e. stable, self-governing, controls the vast majority of their claimed territory), it is generally ok to post ITN/R elections. However, the situation is so complex in Western Sahara and the SADR controls such a little portion of territory. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving to support. After mulling it over, exceptions beget exceptions and could become a slippery slope. As this is on the list of sovereign states, even if it only controls a portion of its claimed territory, it is ITN/R. Curbon7 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The List of current heads of state and government does not differentiate by amount of territory controlled. It classifies Western Sahara as one of the states that "control at least part of their territory and are recognised by at least one UN member state". Joofjoof (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if Western Sahara was as recognized as South Africa (or pick one), this wouldn't be an ITN/R nomination. There was no change in leadership or general election. A Secretary General election isn't close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Constitution of the SADR stipulates that the president is whoever is elected General-Secretary by the Congress of the POLISARIO Front. The Congress includes representatives directly elected by the population of the refugee camps the SADR administers and representatives of the army, diaspora and occupied territories. I didn't add the full origin due to POLISARIO's reticency to give detailed numbers of where they come from but I will add this information to the article if that helps.
 * TL;DR: This counts as a general election as it renews indirectly (and democratically) the top leadership of the SADR and it's relevant enough due to it being competitive and not consensus-driven as previous elections. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Wikipedia's article on general election describes different deals from this, but is also almost exclusively focused on the US and UK. It's probably missing something very relevant to this political situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In this political situation it is, as the Congress determines a broad main line of action SADR politicians cannot change until the next Congress. For example, this Congress demands more military action and the SADR will have to provide that or else they won't be reelected in the next Congress due to failing to answer to the priorities set by the national liberation movement (not a party). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITNR already covers a lot of ground for elections and there is a reason states with limited recognition are not included therein and have not been posted including the recent Northern Cyprus, Hong Kong et al etlections. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The way I see it, we have a real serious grey area here in regards to if partially-recognized states are eligible for the INT/R elections item. To me, I don't see any good way to fix the problem, in large part due to the status of the ROC, which is largely recognized and agreed as an item for posting by the editing base here, but from what I can see is only recognized by 13 UN member states (many of them regional allies). By contrast, the SADR is recognized by 45 UN members. Taiwan's position as an item of desire by the CPC may elevate it here in regards to international attention, but I believe it stands to reason that the SADR's elections should land in the same bin as far as notability. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia editors dont determine what is a state, other states do that, as this is a state that has won some recognition as a state and since it does control some territory, this qualifies as ITNR and should be posted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, without a general election or change in leader, the Polisario Front could control the entire galaxy and still be ineligible for the R boost here. If you want to support it, fine. But it needs to be because you think it's the right thing to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why did we post Xi Jinping? That was not a general election and the post did not change hands. I dont think the only thing we should be blurbing is when Western style democracies have an election, that just reeks of systemic bias. "Our" way is the only way we recognize, the end. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Xi was posted due to being the first Chinese leader to serve three terms. If it’d been his second it probably would’ve been ignored. The Kip (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case this is the first competitive election ever held for the office, which I deem as post-worthy. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem then is that when ITN posts worthy competitions, it's naturally in the style of x beating y in the z. In this case, y equals Bachir Mustafa Sayed. I don't remember ever seeing a redlink on the mainpage, but someone here longer than I might correct me. If you hurry, you can create a new biography for this gamechanging challenger. But it won't be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is WP:ITN/R, per elections bullet point 1, because the country appears in the List of sovereign states. ITN/R does not tell us to only consider states in the top part of the sovereign states list. And yes, it also has a clause later on about dependent territories and disputed countries, but that does not say it overrides bullet point 1, it would merely cover cases not already covered by bullet point 1. If editors wish to change what's ITN/R they should do so at the talk page, not by opposing individual noms. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Article looks a bit messy, but I've seen worse posted. Western Sahara is likely the country most strongly on the ITN/R edge, but in the spirit of the guideline and this quite competitive election I would definitely include this. I'm still a bit concerned about the article's quality... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit hard to explain the very complex situations so I'm doing my best to better explain it :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: the very complex situation of Western Sahara and its politics* Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose summary of the election and its results. Would support if someone fixed that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can add that, should I add it in results or aftermath? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It is definitely something interesting since their leader got elected by less 70% Braganza (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support since this seems important enough to post, but weak oppose on quality due to the lack of a prose summary for the election results (the article’s quality is good enough otherwise). Support Now, that there's a prose summary, I think it's important enough & good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly? I'm currently expanding the article with stuff such as international delegations/reactions and results for the National Secretariat (with the vague information we're getting), so I don't mind adding more text :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose summary I added to the "General-Secretary" section was what I thought needed to be added. I think it's now good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that looks great, thank you! Tidjani Saleh (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reworded that a bit if that's alright :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I largely echo the comments of Nableezy and Braganza, this seems like a significant election in the region at a point which has the potential to have major consequences. SADR is recognised by quite a large group of countries from my understanding as well. Quinby  ( talk ) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it's on List of sovereign states, so it's ITNR, and the article quality is more than sufficient. Levivich (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Rough consensus to post. A couple of the opposes were due to quality, which no longer appears to be a concern. Tangentially, the point about WP:ITNR being met was not rebutted, yet another path to posting. I didn't include the "the first competitive" portion to the blurb, as "competitive" was not directly worded as such on the page, and the word is a bit ambiguous when the vote was also 69–31. Feel free to discuss the point, if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there'll be time before archiving. I've been wrong before, though. In the meantime, can you replace Chris Hipkins' photo? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Switched. It wasn't protected yet when the blurb was posted. —Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd still add competitive but I thought that "For the first time ever, the candidate for general-secretary wasn't agreed on before the Congress" made it clear enough ^^. I will reword it in the article if that's alright, in that case you can feel free (or not) to update it! @Bagumba Tidjani Saleh (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changes done, should be clearer now :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * actually, my biggest concern with "competitive" in the blurb was that 69–31 wasn't very close (i.e. competitive), as opposed to the intended meaning that there was another candidate. —Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. Not of global significance, and does not qualify from a WP:ITN/R perspective. Much like Somaliland elections, these aren't the sorts of elections that belong on the main page; merely being a representative of a Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization group does not qualify one for the main page. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note, neither "global significance" nor being listed on ITNR is a requirement for being posted on the main page. We post many items not on ITNR all the time, and as noted in the instructions on this page "please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive."  Your objections are hollow as neither can be used to disqualify something from posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The SADR is not part of Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization but of the African Union + the POLISARIO Front is a national liberation movement and the only recognised as such by the UN together with the Palestinian OLP. Palestine would be a better comparison than Somaliland, not recognised by any other country (unless you count Liberland) while the SADR is recognised by at least 45 countries. I don't mind it being pulled down but I consider the comparison provided to be wrong. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

RD:Oladipo Ogunlesi

 * Note Coverage of his career should be expanded. Joofjoof (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

user:TheAafi what is lede? I do not understand.
 * Comment Can the citations from the lede be moved to the article body? If stuff is already referenced in article body, why do we need extra citations in the lede? It would be better if the death section is also modified and put in a paragraph format instead of a quote-format. Best, ─ The Aafī   (talk)  11:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be everything in the introduction of the article (at the top), before the section "Early life and education". In this case, this would be the first two sentences. For more information, see also: Manual of Style/Lead section. Best,  Spencer T• C 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andi Rasdiyanah Amir

 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. Some parts read a little awkwardly, but overall good work! Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready. Good work indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: David Crosby

 * Support - Article looks good, and has a lot of citations too &#32; 𝐹𝒾𝓇𝑒 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑒 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hold on - currently sourced to 'Newsdirect.com'. Need more verification first.  Some on the tubes are saying this is a hoax.  Jip Orlando (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, certainly a cultural figure for his time, but he wasn't Pele or Benedict XVI. Semi-major US significance, little international. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of that time, David Crosby was internationally known. Kurnkerner (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Like the Beatles [YEAH!] he moved the music goalposts. Kurnkerner (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article that supports this point. Perhaps the bands he were in did that, but he himself isn't (yet) documented as having that much significance in the musical world. M asem (t) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * READ Facebook memoirage. today and yesterday. E.g., Jesse Dayton's of a day ago. Kurnkerner (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said, "nothing in the article" that talks to him being important or significant. Memorials from social media mean nothing, we are looking for reliable sources. M asem (t) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Social media, in toto, does mean future reliability. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yahoo article is a 404. I think this is a hoax or an error. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: death now reported by variety. dying (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, guess it is true. Sad. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing is dreadful. This is going to take some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb once article is up to scratch. He was certainly a notable figure in his field. But not THAT notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He was VERY notable. Kurnkerner (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet - This article is a mess, for such a well-known person: bloated lead, poor referencing. Needs work before it's ready for primetime. Moncrief (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle to get discussion going and avenge Little Richard. On phone rn, so haven't edited template. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Blurb is an almost but not quite there. CoatCheck (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support RD once updated, weak oppose Blurb  I can't see Crosby being a blurb-able musician on his own. Maybe arguable if included in blurb was The Byrds and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, with CSNY arguably being one of the first Supergroup (music) ( Cream (band) might be a first, depending on how someone sees it). However, once article is updated to a decent state for RD, I'd support based on legacy, long running career, and pop culture icon on the Vietnam War generation and early 70's music. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb no indication of being a leader of the musical community by way of legacy or impact. He was part of two influential groups, but that doesn't make him influential. --M asem (t) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blurb - Great musician. Just not blurbworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Old man dies... tragic, but it's life. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be the devil's advocate, we've posted the deaths of old men before, most recently Constantine II. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * : this is precisely what I mean by "precedent creep". We have a duty to maintain some reasonable standard for blurbworthiness - otherwise stuff like this happens. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OMD Nobody gets into the business thinking, "I want to sound like David Crosby". That's not to say he wasn't involved in a lot of really good songs, bands and movements. He just didn't blow anyone's mind with this or that innovation. Fix up the usual and get him a Photo RD. A beautiful man we lost here today. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. It may be true nowadays, but since the mid-60's David Crosby has been a model for dozens for how one might sing.  Check Jesse Dayton's homage in FB the last couple days. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose both – until article is updated. Article is currently a hot mess. Cheers!  07:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb, somewhat similar level to Loretta Lynn. Hope the article can be fixed up well. RIP.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - A significant musician, but not so outstandingly so as to merit a blurb IMHO. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb - Per Genevieve. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - I'd be more likely to support a blurb for Neil Young (let's hope we're not discussing it any time soon, though). Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as he isn't notable enough for one. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 11:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He's notable enough in Spanish Wiki to merit blurb and a pic. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Following the Spanish wiki isn't policy on the English wiki. If I were on the Spanish wiki, I would've still opposed. Too many deaths are nominated for blurbs recently. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the music career section is uncited. Needs a lot of work to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment "Support RD when ready" might be the dumbest 4 words on Wikipedia. Everyone, by default, supports every RD when it's ready. Anyway, oppose blurb because Crosby himself, while a stellar musician, was not hugely transformative or impactful, and the article is still far from ready for RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but my hope is that providing those kinds of comments as part of a somewhat broader statement provide suitable encouragement to editors who know about the subject (and in this case I am not nearly well-enough informed) to actually go and fix it so that it can be posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's to contrast the opposition of a blurb. i.e., blurb is a no-go, but the standard RD will be ready soon enough. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 00:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My silence is rarely an unspoken Support. I'm on record at several places on this board saying the majority has gone too far with posting literally any bio that's ready. Once more, my default preference (no matter how dumb or upon deaf ears) is to see dead famous people's articles in the "In The News" box, exclusively. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a member of the Byrds, both his singing [ESPECIALLY] and his ideas on arranging were HUGELY influential. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, Support RD. This was the reason RD was created. To post deaths of old people who were famous but not quite so globally transformative. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb [getting the hang of this]. David Crosby (as well as Jeff Beck) are both listed under the respective 'notable deaths' of several major Wiki languages. In Spanish he gets a picture, too.  Besides being on the varsity bench of the musicians of his prime-time he is notable for his representation of/participation in the zeitgeist of the 60's/70's. Kurnkerner (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The role of David Crosby over the decades was not one that, by its nature, stands out. He was one of the rock-and-roll musicians that played the role of influencer. Kurnkerner (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you name three stars who have called him an influence? Two? One? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David Crosby is an ICONIC person of the '60's. Like Frank Sinatra, for a previous generation say. "Laurel Canyon," etcetera. Kurnkerner (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need to say 'support' at the start of each of your posts - just bolded, once, in your main entry in the discussion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for people so important that a separate article on their death and/or funeral could be written. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have never seen that asserted here before. FWIW I am opposed to a blurb. But the standard you are proposing is way too high and would all but eliminate death blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asserted it here for years. And if you look through the results, you will see that blurbs that get posted conform to the standard a goodly percentage of the time. This nomination will fail, and it should never have been made in the first place. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I invite both of you to participate in the WT:ITN discussion on death blurbs so we can maybe hash out this particular issue. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have kept asserting it, but it isn't policy, or even an opinion that seems to have much traction beyond yourself. Last time you did it, I asked you to show me where it was so written, and you didn't. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As long as there are so many cn tags in the article, this is not getting posted. Work on the article first instead of discussing RD vs blurb. --Tone 13:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More people would work on it if they were assured it would not get a blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: "RIP David Crosby. As a member of The Byrds, 1 of the historically essential Artists that created the Artform of Rock. The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, Beach Boys & Yardbirds, showed future generations like us what was possible. We owe him, and them, everything." - SVZ. One of dozens of tributes on Facebook.  The David Crosby topic deserves blurb and photo.  The main article might need some work.
 * The above is from Steve Van Zandt. Kurnkerner (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Not notable for a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still many unsourced paragraphs, and half his discography as well.—Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is in the process of completely missing the boat on this one. Crosby featured in a substantial obituary in the New York Times and numerous other publications. His 1971 album has become a cult classic. His membership in The Byrds, one of the most significant bands of the 1960s, and CSNY, one of the biggest bands of the 1970s, is enough. For those who say "well, it's the bands he was in, not Crosby himself" are overlooking the fact that it is the band members, and their individual creativity brought into the group, that gave rise to the work and its influence. Crosby also formed two other working groups - his partnership with Nash and CPR, and started a new phase of his career with tours and albums in his 70s - that last an especially notable achievement. It's also not so much whether he is significant to younger generations now, but was he significant at one time and for how long. Crosby was significantly notable for decades; again, that's enough. PJtP (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is all hand-waving reasons, not backed by necessarily secondary coverage (to avoid OR) in the article to support a blurb. The article documents his life but doesn't make clear why he was transformative. (Also lots of famous people get long form orbits in the NYTimes and other media, that's not a reason to go with a blurb) M asem  (t) 00:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hand-waving reasons? What does that even mean? If the Wikipedia article doesn't identify why Crosby was notable, that's the fault of Wikipedia editors, not Crosby himself. For instance, Wikipedia dropped the ball with the death of Ornette Coleman in June of 2015 - if I remember correctly they didn't even mention him in RD never mind a blurb, and at least one editor brought forth the argument that the article itself on Coleman wasn't up to snuff. Again, the fault of the editors themselves, not the man who was a major, if not the primary, creator of an entire school of jazz. If most of the editors here don't believe Crosby should get a blurb, okay, that's how it works, but it is based on belief, and he should probably be mentioned in RD before too much time has passed. PJtP (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows what "hand-waving", "transformative" or "significant" means here. I mean, we all have our ideas, but a definition was never agreed (including the future). WP:OR has likewise never applied to these discussions, and we have never let the lack of a secondary source using one of our homegrown buzzwords to describe a "major figure" stand in the way of a "blurbing". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And when those buzzword are in reliable, secondary sources, someone will still oppose and downplay them as "vague descriptors". Welcome to ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main thing holding up RD are sourcing deficiencies. Otherwise, his having an article is the only significance required. —Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good and looks to be well sourced now too.--SitcomyFan (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Baldwin charged in Rust shooting

 * Oppose Unimportant news, especially as it's only a charge, not a conviction. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As Black Kite said, this is only a charge, not a conviction. Not only that, ITN isn't a celebrity news-ticker either. Good faith nom, but I don't think this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. According to the BBC News article, it's not even a charge yet it's an intention to charge. We don't post announcements of intentions to do things, we post when things are actually done. However, when it comes to criminal prosecutions ITN's convention is that the verdict (or conclusion if that happens before a verdict) is the best time to post in almost all cases, in part because that has the fewest BLP issues. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above --Rockin (Talk) 18:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose there has been a rough consensus in the past that we post convictions, not other steps along the judicial process. I see no reason to deviate from that norm here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Charges haven't even been filed yet. The district attorney announced her intention to file charges by the end of the month. But regardless, I support the consensus that only convictions are ITN-worthy. e.b. (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anton Walkes

 * Support. The personal life section could do with improvement so a third of it isn't about a minor conviction, and more than a sentence about his death would also be good. However what is there is sourced and good enough for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the passage about the circumstances about his death a bit, from another article with more information. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Sources are good. Decent summary of his club career, comparable to other footballers' pages. I second the above comments re: improvements, and agree that it's good enough to post as is. e.b. (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-cited. His career is holistic enough for our purposes, but early life could use expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Ghani Azhari

 * Support RD, but I would ask the nominator to understand that inclusion here is not some kind of accolade or quality mark for the person - anyone who has a Wikipedia page that is in decent condition, and who dies, is eligible to be posted here without any need to further weigh their achievements. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article might need some expansion IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support GenevieveDEon. Although this is possibly my 13th RD nom, I had no other sentence in my mind and just posted what came into my mind quickly, and I know RD's is not any kind of accolade. Thanks User:The Bestagon, I'm expanding the article as the resources allow me. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Expansion would be good, as would improvement to the prose such that nearly every sentence doesn't start "He", but it's OK for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Page could definitely be expanded, but what is there is well cited and coherent. Similar to other academics/published authors, ISBN numbers/other IDs (or even just a link to WorldCat) would enhance the list of his published works. e.b. (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right @Ebacas. I tried very hardly searching variants of his name in English/Urdu on VIAF and WorldCat but could not find anything. His books are not online so I do not have access to ISBN numbers either. I hope all this can be taken care of in few upcoming days. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  03:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ebacas: I was just able to find WorldCat link but unfortunately there is just one book listed. Nonetheless, updated. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to go. Expanded enough and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Solomon Peña

 * Oppose on a number of reasons: arrests without convictions are generally not posted, none of the attempts were successful, only local politicians involved. YD407OTZ (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As stated we only post arrests in rare circumstances. I don't want to downplay this incident, but I don't think the degree of significance is there for this to be one of those circumstances. Curbon7 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- no one died, and it's unusual, but not to such a level that it should be blurbed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - That is quite a convoluted blurb. We generally don't blurb arrests, and while this may be an unusual event, it doesn't quite fit in to ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As ever, single arrests tend not to be notable. In the event of a conviction, I would be interested in potentially supporting that being posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) R'Bonney Gabriel

 * Questions Is this ITNR? Do we normally mention the ancestry of the winner? It does seem a particularly American obsession to give everyone hyphenated labels. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close Beauty pageants have been repeatedly and decidedly shut down at ITN, and for good reasons- they're frivolous non-news with no impact that almost nobody cares about. -- Kicking222 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – I would be interested in seeing this on ITN, but I don't believe the Miss Universe 2022 article currently goes in enough depth about the event itself. I like the #Background section and the list of the selection committee, but the rest of the #Pageant section (which might be the meat of the article?) is unsourced and fairly short. It doesn't quite feel up to par for ITN yet, as a subject that isn't in ITN/R. (I quite like the way you formatted the blurb, by the way! Though I'm not sure everyone will appreciate it) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fairly significant, I must say. Though there have been several Filipinos and Americans who have been crowned in the past, she is the first Filipino-American to win both Miss USA and Miss Universe. However, I don't think beauty pageants – specifically the Big Four – have been featured on ITN before. Vida0007 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not be using the ridiculous American custom of double barreled labelling of people to declare this person to be somehow special. It doesn't happen in other countries. If I won a beauty pageant I would be the first French-Danish-Scottish English-Australian winner. Would that make me special? HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a broader Americas custom here, due to colonialism. Something like "indigenous Brazilian" or "Chinese Mexican" could also be used in these manners, for example. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Kicking222. Good faith nom, but I don't think we should post beauty pageants. I also think at the very least the article should have an image of Gabriel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where to get the picture's Gabriel (Official potrtrait Gabriel)?--СтасС (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(posted) Jacinda Ardern resigns

 * Support - Ardern is a major world leader. Though I believe the phrasing of the blurb should be changed to the same phrasing as Boris Johnson's (which was posted both as he announced his resignation and when he actually resigned): "Jacinda Ardern announces her resignation as Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party and Prime Minister of New Zealand by February 7th". Estar8806 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- wait until she actually resigns next month... or, even better, wait until her replacement is confirmed, which should also be next month. No need to post two blurbs about the same event. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * SupportI think this would be worth covering in "In the news" given that Ardern has cultivated a substantial international profile as a result of the Christchurch mosque shooting and her Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. Agree with 's wording. Could wait until the actual resignation. Andykatib 01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I would also suggest using an image, such as this FP. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Okay with posting per ITNR but wait until she actually resigns XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for her successor to be elected, which should be "in three days' time" according to NYT. The election of the new Labour leader and thus the new PM would be INTR. rawmustard (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This announcement is obviously In The News today, in many countries already. That's what this page is about. And let's not get too excited about the calling of the election. New Zealand has maximum terms of three years for its parliament. The previous election was on 17 October 2020. So 14 October 2023 is actually the latest an election can be held. (It must be on a Saturday.) Circumstances could still lead to the government calling an earlier one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, technically the latest it could be held is on January 13, 2024. But your broader point still stands. Endwise (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should comment on that. I moved the election article from Next New Zealand general election to 2023 New Zealand general election just the other day as there were enough reliable sources for a 2023 election. And whilst it is correct that an early January 2024 election is theoretically possible, this was never going to happen as the country basically shuts down for 2 weeks on 24 December of each year. Hence, calling an October 2023 election is no surprise and it had been known for a while that the election date would be announced while the Labour recess (where the resignation announcement was made) was happening.  Schwede 66  03:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from what I read it was looking like sometime in September/October/November already, so no surprise. Endwise (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And having now listened to her resignation speech, I can report that caucus will vote on Sunday. If somebody gets 2/3 of the votes, that person will become party leader and thus the new prime minister. Once that person is confirmed, Ardern will resign her PM role pronto. I'd say the chances of somebody getting that much support is realistic, so this might all be sorted this Sunday.  Schwede 66  04:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait She is still the PM. When she actually stands down and a successor takes office is when we should post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am curious about your logic. This is obviously In The News right now, in many media outlets all over the world. We come here to nominate items that are In The News. This is in the news now. Please don't just repeat what you already said. Explain how we can ignore the fact that it's in the news now! HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not a news ticker. We don't post announcements, even widely reported announcements. For the same reason we don't post retirements. Nothing has actually happened yet. When it does, we will post it, assuming article quality is up to scratch. Normal procedure here is that we post transitions, except in elections when we post those results. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That means we're not really meant to discuss what's In The News now. Right? Maybe we should change the name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WT:ITN is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It will also be in the news then. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So we ignore the fact that it's in the news now? HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We can ignore the fact that it's In the News for the same reason that we ignored the post about McCarthy's speakership, even though that was also In The News. We can wait until she officially resigns. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to McCarthy is apples and oranges - McCarthy isn't a head of government, and the public event - the general election - which led to the ballot on his speakership had already happened, and been posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was posted & then pulled due to article quality issues. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The House election was, but McCarthy's election bid was never posted. It's a moot point now (using "moot" in the American way), because the new leader to replace Ardern has been announced. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for new leader, then the blurb can say Jacinda Ardern resigns and X takes over as new leader of the NZ Labour Party. I also oppose the proposed blurb mentioning the general election; the election would've been held at about this time regardless, all this does is confirm the specific date as October 14, which is not internationally newsworthy. For context, general elections in New Zealand have to be held at most every (roughly) 3 years, and the last one was on October 17, 2020, meaning it would've probably been held sometime in September to November-ish if there wasn't a snap election. Endwise (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support, but wait  Unlike the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss cases, which elected their replacements within days, this one should be brought up again closer to February 7th, which would then likely get approved. TheCorriynial (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheCorriynial Boris Johnson's succesor (Truss) was not elected within days but actually over the course of two months. He resigned on July 7, and Truss was declared the winner of the contest on September 5. Johnson's resignation announcement was still blurbed. Estar8806 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was, and it should not have been. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for the new leader. Caucus is having a vote this weekend; this might sort itself out with that vote.  Schwede 66  03:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but Wait as per said by @User:TheCorriynial Vriend1917 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the party leadership vote this weekend. Otherwise, support. Vida0007 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to support per Nableezy and Patar knight's points below. The leadership election might be longer than expected – no one (as of this writing) has been confirmed to stand (although there have already been several others who have publicly declined to join the leadership race). Vida0007 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can wait for when her successor takes office. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, no reason not to also post this one, unless we're asserting that some countries are more "important" than others and therefore refusing to take a WP:WORLDWIDE view on this. And post immediately (once quality is assured) - this is in the news now, suggesting we wait is absurd. If a successor is chosen quickly, we can simply amend the blurb; otherwise we can do what we did with Boris and Liz's successors and post that separately at the time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - immediately, we posted each of the British PM's resignations when they were announced, not when they took effect. And unlike the British PMs, the PM resigning in New Zealand is non-routine and out of the ordinary. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 08:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Such resignations ahead of elections seem fairly normal in NZ. Geoffrey Palmer, Jim Bolger and John Key all resigned in a similar way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't know how many times it has to be said that resignations are not ITNR, but the appointment of the successor. It was already warned that including the resignation of Johnson and Truss was a dangerous precedent. Time to stop that drift. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which part of In the news doesn't make sense to you? This obsession with attempting to be "logical" about when we post stories, and fitting everything into neat ITN/R shaped boxes, is WP:Wikilawyering at its finest and does a disservice to our readers. And dangerous? Exaggeration much. This is a headline story and it's in the news now, not at some unspecified point in the future. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Main Page is not a news journal. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but "In The News" publishes topics in the news. More is better than less. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There was a similar changing of the guard in 2016. We posted on 6 December when John Key announced his resignation and then again on the 15th when Bill English took over. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, but wait - Per above. Definitely notable, but wait until she is no longer PM PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The election was already scheduled, she didn't call it. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an uninformed comment. The election has to happen every three years or thereabouts, but it is the PM's job to set the specific date.  Schwede 66  20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak wait - It isn't that the UK is "more important" than NZ, but pre-election resignations are not so uncommon in New Zealand. Post when a successor is chosen/takes over. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - We don't need to argue that she's a 'major world leader'; changes of heads of national government are ITN/R. But as with Liz Truss (but not Boris Johnson) we should post the resignation now, and update the blurb once her replacement is chosen, as the timescale is short. No need to re-promote the story separately at that point - just update the then-existing blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support NOW!!! - This is in the news now. The selection of a leader, however much it might be within our guidelines to favor, is nowhere near as newsworthy as the resignation itself. We already look a bit silly debating the minutia when this is already front page headlines. Consider how the presses stopped when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson announced in 1968 that he wouldn't seek re-election.
 * Then again, Johnson's resignation was wayyyyy before either of the Democratic or Republican candidates had been chosen. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also point out that Ardern has been referred to as a celebrity politician. Her resignation is being covered substantially in the news. Estar8806 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Johnson didn't resign; he just simply chose not to run for that cycle yet still served out his term to its conclusion.

rawmustard (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I used the wrong words. I meant Johnson not announcing his reelection bid. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pshaw... One should never let the facts get in the way of a good bout of indignation. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The World Darts Championship is still in the ITN box. That event ran from December 15th to January 3rd. We have two-week old news in the box and yet we are apparently beside ourselves at the prospect of posting today's news.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is in good shape, but I think we should wait and post it as a combined blurb once her successor is known. Makes more sense to me to do it that way.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - The leadership election is only 3 days away, so I think this can wait. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now - this is in the news now. I don't understand why some create these little rules like, "only when there's a successor". WP:ITN says what the purpose of ITN is, and it's to help readers find articles that are in the news. Waiting defeats the purpose. If there is an update in the story while the blurb is posted -- like a successor being elected -- we just update the blurb, and continue to fulfill the stated, consensus purpose of ITN. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN prioritizes quality over quantity, or speed in this case. We know her replacement is to be named within a day or so, and this event will still be in the news when that happens. The article will be of better quality once we can write about the replacement. If it were a month off, then posting now makes sense, but not in the current situation M asem (t) 16:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I love it when you tell me how ITN works :-) Levivich (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, Levivich, I see you added a little emphasis to the word "now". Unfortunately, you should have put it in all caps and added a minimum of three exclamation points.  That's the minimum amount of emphasis to grant your vote extra weight.  Since you didn't do that, unfortunately, your opinion counts the same amount as other people's.  If you had put those extra exclamation points in, I'm sure an admin would have ignored all of the rest of the comments in the thread and immediately done your bidding.  Ah, well, live and learn.  Next time I'm sure you'll remember.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He can always strike out the now and append the "NOW!!!" after it. That carries the extra benefit of it looking like there's two "now"s which might subliminally influence the majority of posting admins that count nows versus waits. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't work for you. Have you thought of trying a fourth exclamation point?  Can't hurt... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not now. Maybe later. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  NOW!    Levivich (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when? 174.113.161.1 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When is NOW! for those of us living in the Eastern American time zone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's 6:45p.m. Levivich (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. Looking at the discussion, it seems we have a rather decent consensus to wait a couple of days and post a combo blurb with the successor. MayI close this now? --Tone 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hat the silly, but leave the discussion open. If ITN can wait three days to post this, then there is no rush to close the discussion about it. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't close the discussion. Most of what is said here will be relevant once a successor is named.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. When her replacement takes office it will merit posting per ITN/R, but that item can be combined with this into a new blurb; we wouldn't need to post two separate stories. This is in the news now, I don't see a strong reason to wait. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait til 7 February, her expected date of resignation, then put in the news. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think it makes more sense to post now, and then update the blurb with her successor.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a resignation, this is an announcement that she will resign in the future - we don't post people announcing their intention to do something in the future, we post when they actually do the thing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We did exactly that with Johnson and with Truss and May, all of whom stayed on until their replacement was selected. Yet we posted all nearly immediately upon being announced. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Johnson and Truss are not directly comparable given that it was a major escalation of an ongoing political scandal that was borderline blurbable in itself (I think I was arguing for it to be added to ongoing shortly before Truss threw the towel in). Posting May before she actually resigned was definitely wrong for the reasons posting this now would be wrong - we should not post intentions to do things, we should only post the actual doing of things. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should be posting to In the news when it is in the news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a major full-time position like this, resignation is a process, not a instantaneous event. The process has been initiated and will take some time to complete but it seems reasonably irrevocable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The process has been initiated" the same is true when people are arrested or charged or trials begin but we wait until the conclusion to post. Elections are more than just "seemingly reasonably irrevocable" when they begin but again we don't post even when polls open. We didn't post the abdication of the Dutch monarch when they announced a few months in advance they intended to do so, even though carrying through with it was equally reasonably irrevocable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting now per the Key/English, Johnson/Truss, Truss/Sunak examples. This is in the news now. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are in the news now that we don't post. McCarthy's contested speakership, for example. Or the announcement that the US House was captured by Republicans... I'm tired of the double standard here. It was wrong to post Johnson/Truss' announcement to resign, let's not make the same mistake here. We can wait three days. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference between McCarthy and these isn’t a “double standard” with the US or anything. McCarthy’s simply not the head of government, Ardern/Truss/Sunak/Johnson are. That’s what makes this notable. The Kip (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The US has three co-equal branches of government, so he's a head of government. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In honestly, it depends on what you consider a "government". People more familiar with the Parliamentary system might argue that the "government" of the US is only the executive branch. Actually, someone made such an argument on ITN a while back. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of defining "government" in "head of government", the orthodox definition, except in semi-presidential republics and more autocratic forms of government refers to the executive branch. So while it's totally fair - at least casually - to say McCarthy is part of government, he's not a "head of government".-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My reference to it being in the news now is not about a threshold for posting any item, but about the best time for this particular item to be posted to help readers. This story will eventually get posted as part of an ITN/R story, unlike McCarthy. Johnson and Truss was posted, and I would bet that if Biden announced that he would be resigning in a month, that would get posted at the time of announcement as well. Also, looking at 2023 New Zealand Labour Party leadership election, it's also uncertain if January 22 will provide a name, since there might not be a consensus pick in caucus. If so, it would take even longer for a successor to be chosen. There's no harm in posting a blurb now, when it is in the news, and updating/reblurbing whenever a successor is chosen. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per precedence from the UK PMs. The Kip (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support When a leader resigns, it is usually posted. However, since she has not resigned yet, we need to Wait until she resigns.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait and see whether the new leader recognizes the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny as essential workers. Even if he doesn't, that's cool. Or if she doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We can post when something actually happens instead of just an announcement. The fact that we posted prematurely before doesn't mean we should do it now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting it now. Didn't we post the same news for Johnson? Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of order, just because something wrong was done in the past, doesn't mean we are bound to do that same wrong thing forever... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus sometimes gets it wrong, but we still abide by consensus. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, but probably something that should be discussed on the talk page, rather than sporadically whenever someone resigns. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Why not put the resignation announcement up today and then post the results of the new leader elected by the labour party caucus in a few days when they finish voting. Flyingfishee (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Makes more sense to post this when Ardern's replacement is chosen. Her resignation is, in theory, just as significant as the choosing of her replacement and both events will be in the news when the replacement is chosen. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You just gave a damn compelling reason as to why we should post this event now and update the blurb later once we get news of her replacement. So it's a bit strange that you voted "oppose". 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  21:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Well, I'm about to post this; just awaiting media protection. The Labour caucus was disciplined enough that there was just one candidate be put forward by 9am local time this morning and that seals the deal; we have a new prime minister. I've put Altblurb2 into the box; change it to whatever is better. I'll be offline for a few hours shortly.  Schwede 66  21:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good call, this was the time to post. As a side note, I usually leave the previous image in the box if the blurb is still there, until the new image is ready. Tone 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment he's not prime minister yet though? --  AxG /  ✉  21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good spot, I changed to "is chosen to succeed". Tone 21:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we have 'Jacinda Ardern (pictured) announces her resignation as Prime Minister of New Zealand and leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, and Chris Hipkins is selected to succeed her' until the handover, and 'Chris Hipkins (pictured) succeeds Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister of New Zealand and leader of the New Zealand Labour Party following her resignation' afterwards? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - One problem with waiting to post this and posting about the choice of successor instead of the resignation, is that the story that's in the news isn't that Chris Hipkins succeeded Jacinda Ardern, it's that Jacinda Ardern resigned. Ardern was the world's youngest female head of state, only the second elected head of government in the world to give birth while in office, and only the third female PM of NZ. What makes this story significant isn't that it's just a change in PM, it's that this PM resigned. And now, instead of a blurb about a woman of historical significance resigning, with a picture of a woman, we have a blurb about a man succeeding her, with a picture of a man. Friends, this is how systemic bias happens. Nobody here intended to let the story about a man overshadow the actually-more-important story about a woman, but it is the result. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree. The story is that the head of government of NZ is being replaced. Full stop. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It can be framed as Jacinda Ardern will resign and be succeeded by Chris Hipkins. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be better. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At the risk of turning babyface on you, pal, I like things just the way they are. Back in the day, when resignation was all the rage, it made sense to focus on the loss because we didn't know the winner. If you check the news again and ignore the past, you'll see her apparent successor has apparently succeeded her in popularity. That's fleeting popularity, of course. Time will tell who history remembers in the '30s and/or '40s. But for now, it's Hipkins' party, superficially. So wake up or start eating that trash can! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait/Oppose for now until successor is in office.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with posting now that we have a successor. It won't be ITN when the transfer actually happens. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like a picture of Ardern would be more appropriate. Her resignation seems to be the main reason it’s in the news. The resignation of a prime minister from New Zealand usually wouldn’t get this much attention. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't we mention why there's a swap of prime ministers in the first place, i.e. say that Ardern is resigning? Endwise (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Could Ms Ardern please be allowed to be the focus of the story for at least a day? I proposed a possible pair of blurbs above. Our 'wait for the replacement' approach has meant that she barely appears in a story that she initiated. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The last thing we need is *two* blurbs referring to the same event. I'd rather just one extra-long blurb in that case. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at my post above, you will see that I proposed two blurbs to run consecutively, not concurrently, with appropriate photo cues. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Come on, folks. Wikipedia already has a systemic bias problem. Is it that severe of a suspension of disbelief to have the focus be on the former PM for a short period of time? It's bad enough we waited this long just to post the story in the first place. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If the item had been posted before nominations for the leadership had closed, then a photo of Ardern would have been appropriate. But now that Hipkins is almost certain to become the leader, his photo is more appropriate. The fact that Ardern is a woman and Hipkins is a man is irrelevant. The fact that more people know Ardern (especially readers outside of New Zealand) than Hipkins is also irrelevant. Ardern's perceived celebrity is also irrelevant. As stated by Rockstone35 above, "The story is that the head of government of NZ is being replaced". Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Chrisclear (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking that this story is about a change in the head of government of a country is the bias. Not recognizing that this story is about the resignation of a female PM is the bias. Treating this PM resignation like any other PM resignation is the bias. Look at how reliable sources cover this:
 * BBC:
 * NPR:
 * Reuters:
 * Fortune:
 * Indian Express (op-ed):
 * Stuff NZ (op-ed):
 * The Age:
 * NYTimes (op-ed):
 * All over the world, people are saying that (1) the resignation was shocking, and thus a news story, and (2) the story is about women in power. It's not just "NZ changes PMs", and viewing it that way, is biased. Meanwhile, Wikipedia's summary? "Chris Hipkins is chosen..." Levivich (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why you believe that the "story is about women in power"? Is this true for every situation in which a female head of government resigns? Chrisclear (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is about a woman in power (and because, as per all those sources, the rest of the world sees it that way, too), and yes, it is true for every situation in which a female head of government resigns, which is extremely rare, because it's extremely rare to have a female head of government. Failure to appreciate this aspect is an example of systemic bias. The failure to perceive that gender matters here is due to systemic bias, pro-male bias, the viewpoint that a female PM resigning is no different than a male PM resigning. That's the bias. Levivich (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not really doing women any favors by highlighting Ardern's gender, one would assume most members of the "fairer sex" are less enthusiastic to be linked to a prominent example of a person being elevated to a position they weren't qualified for, on the basis of their age and gender, and who, in office, demonstrated that they weren't up to the (admittedly daunting) task. Danthemankhan 00:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I sympathise where is coming from. Yes, it looks like systemic bias. However, it's too big an issue to sort out in an ITN nomination discussion. The reason we've done what we've done is that we don't usually post about resignations; we post about succession instead. I agree that Ardern was a prominent enough figure that a resignation posting would have been appropriate (which, by now, we would have updated to what the blurb currently says, though). Reading the room, I don't think such a proposal would have ever flown given how these discussions usually go. If we wanted to change that, it would be good to have a generic discussion, for example on the talk page, how we want to identify what makes a resignation ITN worthy. In my view, being a significant female world leader would be a strong argument that should be put forward in such a discussion.  Schwede  66  01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is why the ITNR is spelled out as "changes to" and why we should have waited until we could have a blurb that said Ardern resigned and was replaced by Hipkins. Which we knew was likely within 3-4 days of the announcement of the resignation (which was not happening itself for several weeks). We would have had one simple blurb that would have been neutral and done all parties justice, while the switchover was still in the news (maybe not the above-the-fold news, but in the news nevertheless). Too many editors in ITNC now are looking for instant gratification of news stories when as an encyclopedia we look to the long-term. If one wants to write to the moment, Wikinews is better suited for that, we want to make sure that the appropriate articles are all updated as well as what we present on the front page. M asem  (t) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dan, that's extremely strong (and very weird) opinions about a NZ politican from an Tennessean. I understand your interests include "the female sex", as per your userpage, but please try to keep this strange soapboxing a to minimum on project pages like this. Parabolist (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Just a couple of comments on what's happening:
 * The Labour caucus started meeting at 1pm NZ time (100 minutes ago) and media report they heard loud cheering and clapping coming from that room, interpreting this as Hipkins having been formally confirmed as Labour leader (and TBH, anything else would be hugely unexpected). There's a press conference scheduled for 3pm when we'll learn about this officially.
 * Secondly, a lot of media (especially international media) are reporting that Ardern will "resign on 7 Feb". That is a clear misunderstanding; what she said during her resignation speech is that she'll resign by 7 Feb at the latest. That allowed for the case that the caucus couldn't agree on a leader and the then-required process of organising an electoral college would have taken a good couple of weeks. My expectation (the media hasn't reported this; it's my best guess) is that with Hipkins now having (supposedly) been confirmed, they'll go to see the governor-general tomorrow (Monday) and that'll be the formal changeover of the prime ministership. Thus, my hunch is that 23 January will be the date when the formal changeover occurs.  Schwede 66  00:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Hipkins will be formally sworn in as prime minister on Wednesday" Ok, I was out by two days.  Schwede 66  02:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment A better way to stick it to the white man (so to speak) might be to work future deputy prime minister Carmel Sepuloni into the picture. She's not only a winner, but a woman and a Tongan. The very first Tongan MP in New Zealand, I'll add, as well as only the third Tongan I recall becoming globally famous at all, after The Faces of Fear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Antiguan general election

 * Support - This is ITN/R, isn't it? Article is of great quality. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as said above Vriend1917 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R and a decent article. Good enough for me! The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ITN/R and is in mostly good quality. The Aftermath needs improvement, but it seems fine for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as described above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A relevant prose summary of the results is a minimum quality standard for election results. So far, all we have is data in tables.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the amount of prose looks fine to me; even if it had less prose, I would support; data in tables is useful information to the reader, it doesn't help further ITN's purpose (helping readers find articles they're looking for because they're in the news) to require a certain amount of prose. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. There is room for expansion but the article meets the standards for posting. --Tone 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see this blurb added. Antigua has a population of 100K. Yes, it's technically a country, but in what sense would we consider this item to be "in the news"? I sought out this discussion and the new sources referenced here are local news-type stories. A quick search of Google News doesn't show other major news outlets covering this story. Reuters did pick it up at <https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/antigua-and-barbuda-pm-browne-secures-third-term-in-general-elections>, so I can't say that even the wire services ignored it, but this is a strange addition for sure. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Recurrent items don't need to be in the news. They're like recent deaths. If there's an article, the only next step is to tidy it. Unless it's one of the unbold ones. Then it's ready for the main page already. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The newsworthiness of a country is not solely a function of its size or population, and one of the functions of the inclusion of certain political events in ITN/R is to counter our systemic bias in favour of large, white-majority, anglophone countries. And you can bet that major news outlets in Antigua are covering it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is ITN/R, significance is assumed. It is In The News in Antigua, but not in other places - just like a lot of the stuff we post. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted the elections in Nauru, population 10,000. This topic is ITN/R, we post all election of this kind (assuming quality is up to par), no matter if it's the United States or San Marino. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an argument to be had that the political situations in larger countries are more notable than smaller countries, since more people live there. However, there's really no way to do that fairly. ITN/R is clear: as long as country is sovereign in the Westphalian sense, changes in head of government are inherently notable. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gary Smith (record producer)

 * Not ready - The article needs expansion, and inline citations. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, Article does not have enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Less than 280 words of prose? Anything else to write about this person? Just one ref supporting the entire article? Any other refs providing footnotes? Please expand this article and put in more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only one reliable source cited. We shouldn't feature a page who text doesn't inherently demonstrate that WP:GNG is met, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: Mahsa Amini protests

 * Remove Last significant updates to article cover events that happened 9 January, over a week ago. Not really receiving enough significant new information to qualify as ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove per above. It's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove Seems now mostly focused on resulting criminal procedures and executions, not the protests themselves. Kafoxe (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove As per above, coverage has mostly faded and updates are fairly low. JumbledPasta (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove because a) coverage has largely faded into the background, and b) the updates to the article are not frequent and/or sufficient enough to merit continued inclusion. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 02:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak remove – There have been two nice expansions in the past ten days, but new developments in the protests themselves don't seem to be happening anymore, and the Jan 6 and 9 dates are all about number totals. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Remove - per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove per above.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready to remove, consensus is firmly in favor of removal. The Kip (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 00:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if the protests ramp up again, we can put it back. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Kyiv helicopter crash

 * Support once the article is developed, and name-check Denys Monastyrsky in the blurb, thereby taking account of the nomination below as well. Major news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Death of a high ranking government official. It's unclear right now if this was directly related to the war; it was foggy and there is little to no electricity to light buildings for a helicopter to see. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it should be clarified in the blurb that nine of the deaths were on the ground(per the BBC). 331dot (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2, the high profile nature of the victims is noteable in and of itself, regardless of the circumstances of the crash.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   11:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - notable death. Notable incident. Needs some expansion, but this highly publicized will lead to expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle With a focus on Monastyrsky. However, the article is a stub at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded - Notable but not enough quality. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 once it's expanded to sufficient quality. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a war going on, and unfortunately people die during wars. The loss of a helicopter is a roughly weekly occurrence in Ukraine these days, and we wouldn't blurb the death of an equivalent minister in other countries. The war is already covered in ongoing and the article is a 3-sentence stub with barely any more information than is in the blurb. Monastyrsky's article isn't much better. Unless Zelenskyy or Putin are killed, I don't think any individual casualties of this war would justify a personal blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * regardless of the war happening or not, cause is not attributed to the war at this time, and the dead are not combatants of the war or on the front line. Having the leadership of any major government department all die in the same accident is blurb worthy imo... I think it's wrong to write this off as "of course people die in war". ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   12:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eighteen people died, we've posted tragedies of similar scale before. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't look like this was related to the war, so I wouldn't say this falls under ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the moment it doesn’t appear to have been anything combat-related, so I don’t believe it makes sense to file it under the ongoing item. The Kip (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now for quality reasons. Article is WAY too short for posting on the main page; it contains scantly more information than the blurb would.  Ping me once it is expanded for a re-evaluation.  At this time, it is NOT main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support Article is still short (so PLEASE keep expanding it!) but it has grown to where it has enough additional information to be worth directing readers to. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait on quality, Support on principle the current crash article is indeed too short. Principle-wise, though, while Ukraine is in a state of war this crash appears mostly unrelated (no claims from either side that Russia had caused it to crash). Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - article needs decent structure, like the Yeti Airlines article has. Significant enough to feature, but this needs to be addressed first. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded - I support it because a high ranking official died, but article is too short &#32; 𝐹𝒾𝓇𝑒 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑒 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 once expanded. This crash gives the Smolensk air disaster vibe, which is also posted to ITN once that article has expanded. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 14:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Support notable incident, the death of multiple high-ranking officials in Ukraine is notable. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment, but I'm going to say again that the specific use of 'notable' in WP:GNG means that it's not a term which will carry much weight in arguing for things to be promoted to the home page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 once expanded notable, but needs expansion. Tails   Wx  14:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support at2 This article includes the death of an important person, although the quality could be improved. Vriend1917 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - government minister dies in office seems blurbable to me, especially as unrelated to the war covered in ongoing, but even then wouldnt be opposed to a blurb here if it was related. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. It's a six-sentence stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! It's now a seven-sentence stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eleven now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 or 3 Cabinet ministers don't die that often. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. A dozen or so people dying at the same time is not notable, but the sudden death of a cabinet minister of a country engaged in the world's largest ongoing war definitely is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once article is expanded. This would be posted if it occurred in any country not at war, and since this incident is not directly related to the war in Ukraine, it is not covered in ongoing. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now. Unless the article has been expanded, I do not see this getting blurbed. However, I could support the inclusion of Monastyrsky's article to the RD section, as that looks to be well-cited (although personally I still find it a bit short). Vida0007 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now, as it looks like this is already good enough to be posted, although I still find it somewhat short, just like Monastyrsky's article. Speaking of Monastyrsky, his article is about to be bumped out of the RD section too (unless nothing gets approved in the coming days); I think it would be better to blurb this helicopter crash once his article is no longer on the RD. Vida0007 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event, death toll in double digits. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Article is very stubby. The quality is good for its length, but there's not much here. This is not a great representation of Wikipedia's ability to describe recent events. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – I believe it has moved into pretty acceptable length for ITN blurbing, nice work :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support will have more impact than that plane crash in Nepal. --Synotia (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a competition. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Tragic, and major impact on politics. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Obviously notable, death of high ranking officials. Alex-h (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty significant for Ukrainian politics, and comparing it to the Nepal airline crash article, it stacks up pretty alright. Not Wikipedia's best work, for sure, but I think it's acceptable enough to go on the main page. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it's short but I don't see that as being low quality. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded the article with details about the aircraft involved, passengers and crew. I also added a picture of the actual helicopter from 2020, which was originally published by Ukraine's Interior Ministry: . I believe this doesn't present a copyright issue, as it is from an official government source, but I'm not fully sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YD407OTZ (talk • contribs)
 * , the image appears to have been licensed properly, so i don't think there is a copyright issue. however, your upload appears to be a duplicate of a file that already exists on commons, here, which was uploaded at a higher quality.  it may be better to simply use that file instead and request that the duplicate be deleted.  dying (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're right. I searched for "Airbus H225" on Commons before uploading, so that's why I didn't find it. I updated the article to link to the higher quality file and requested deletion for mine. YD407OTZ (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * no worries, . i also sometimes fail to find pictures on commons, only to realize later that there was an obvious query that i had overlooked.  in this case, i happened to be aware of the previously uploaded photo simply because i had seen it used in the uk wikipedia article, and had been thinking of adding it to the en wikipedia article myself.  dying (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is a bit short but it looks good enough to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - on the short side, but no stub. Looks good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's been three days, and the article's been good for a while. Can we post this, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denys Monastyrsky

 * There is an article already, but in its current state (a stub) I doubt it is up to ITN standards yet. My personal opinion would be to support on the notability basis, but I say we should wait for the article to be developed more before posting. SBS6577P (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already nominated this story for a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * SNOW close - There is a discussion on a blurb just above. If that fails, and it probably won't, we can talk about RD. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting interpretation of snow, however I agree that if the blurb above is posted, this can be closed. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already called for this move in my response above, but this isn't what WP:SNOW is for, IMHO. Until the proposed blurb above is posted, I think it may be helpful for this proposal to exist as an alternate. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, is it convention that if someone's death was made a blurb, they aren't listed in RD? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe so, but I don't know where it's spelled out, if anywhere, and would welcome a reference if anyone has one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - This should be added to RD, and pulled if mentioned in the blurb on the helicopter crash if that gets posted. Article is in fair shape. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose article should be merged with the article 2023 Kyiv helicopter crash above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A cabinet minister in one of the largest countries in Europe is not only notable for his death. I oppose this merge proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * article talk pages are the correct venue for merge discussions. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The blurb on the crash may or may not get posted, but the RD appears to be in good shape. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is minimally adequate for RD. Marking as ready. Given the crash nomination above is nowhere near adequate for posting, I suggest we go with this for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whilst I strongly feel the crash should be posted, I agree that this RD posting should go up for the meantime. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support Article suffers from WP:PROSELINE, but fine enough for our purposes. Remove once the blurb is posted. Curbon7 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lupe Serrano

 * Support Appears to be very well-cited and holistic. Excellent work. Curbon7 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support just wanted to nominate as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Death date conflict The cited NYT article says she "died on Monday in Syosset, N.Y", which would be January 16, but the WP page says January 17.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Bagumba. Fixed. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the date in the body too.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Ford

 * Not yet ready I added 2 cn tags in the first paragraph, where the footnote did not support the entire text before it. Also, the Coaching record section is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Source issues have been fixed. Curbon7 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The cn tags noted above have been addressed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , Coaching record still uncited though. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, fixing it myself. Curbon7 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead is too sparse. Also, it seems WP:OR that he is (only) "known for" the 1st 3-pointer, but some background is needed in the body of this (e.g. new rules, multiple games that night without exact timing) either way.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike oppose, as the lead was expanded and "known for" removed. It's not too major if the 3-pointer is only in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Prakosa

 * Support Looks well cited. I fixed the death date (it's 2023, not 2022) e.b. (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - long enough. Recent death sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jay Briscoe

 * Not yet ready, but close First half has a couple cn tags, but the second half has quite a bit more. Also, the Championships and accomplishments is partially uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * At least 7 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gino Landi

 * Comment At 175 words, it is very short. As a result, the article isn't very holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Still less than 180 words of prose? That's too stubby. Anything more to write about? --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucile Randon

 * Support She had the virus, not the disease, article looks fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support She could talk, and seemed very conscious during her last days, which is very rare for someone of her age, and especially how she lived through COVID-19. Vriend1917 (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She didn't llve through COVID-19, she tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and felt fine until she tested negative. It happens to some people. Sometimes it's down to the person's immune response, sometimes the test is wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In what sense is 'testing positive, not dying, then testing negative' not 'living through Covid'? She may have been affected by complications, but so may millions of us. We still live, until we die. (Also, what is the relevance of your comment to the progress of the nomination?) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The D in COVID stands for disease and the A in asymptomatic stands for no such thing. The article notes no initial symptoms nor further complications, so this idea that she may have had any is baseless speculation. We know she tested positive, meaning she was likely carrying the virus that can cause COVID. Likewise, a person holding a gun or vial of poison is at risk, but nobody should say that person thus survived a shooting or poisoning. Here, two people wrote she had or lived through a disease, which is just as false. My bolded Support and "article looks fine" are relevant to posting this, the rest is just an attempt to counter COVID misinformation online. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fourth oldest verified person ever. I think that is notable enough to get a blurb, tbh. But at the very least she should definitely be in the recent deaths section. Article looks good, well cited. e.b. (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing wrong with the article, and the being the 4th oldest verified person ever is definitely notable enough. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, time to post. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

President of Vietnam resigns

 * Note that the President of Vietnam has no constitutional power, so this is NOT an ITNR. --M asem (t) 13:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending article fixes. Much of the article is uncited.  I've added a blanket refimprove tag, but as of right now, the article is missing cites for 1) the second half of the first paragraph for the "Early Life" section 2) about two thirds of the "Political Career" section.  Additionally, the political career section has major issues regarding WP:PROSELINE problems.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since the President of Vietnam is purely ceremonial, this really doesn't mean anything outside of Vietnam, maybe the scandals in the government but despite that, this really carries no significance. Vriend1917 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An argument can be made that the King of the United Kingdom is ceremonial. The president is still the head of state, and that is enough to be notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Head of state of a country resigning. I think this is ITN/R, even if the president has no power. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article should be fixed before it goes on the page, though I think it should go up as soon as it's fixed. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support on principle, oppose on quality – per the above. DecafPotato (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support According to our article, the Presidency in Vietnam has considerable power on paper, comparable with the US President, but the de facto situation depends on the individual. In this case, the main story seems to be the anti-corruption drive in which this person has been caught out.  It is therefore comparable with the EU corruption scandal which we blurbed recently.  As the scandal related to Covid, it's also similar to the fall from grace of Boris Johnson. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have put it better myself PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R level. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality - Political career needs work and citations. I want to Support on notability but I don't immediately see any links to scandals he was involved in? Those should be linked in the blurb, if the blurb is to be posted. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell, there were no scandals. He just accepted that 539 of his underlings had done wrong, and so quit, with grace. Mystery, hell yeah, but no (apparent) scandal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this resignation feels like other politicans that have fallen from grace, such as Liz Truss. It should be posted.  TomMasterReal  TALK 23:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Quality of the article is currently not up there. Article doesn't go into much depth about the recent events either. If the article is improved, I can see this being posted, yes. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We must also mention the low quality of this article. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is in good enough condition. Ideally time the blurb to appear after the resignation has been accepted, and include mention of his successor. A head of state being replaced is on ITN/R. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality, Support on Notability article notable, but article should be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support with edits  His article needs work. Also, if this corruption scandal is notable enough, why doesn't it have a page? Does anyone know if it has a page in Vietnamese? e.b. (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ebacas There are a couple of scandals: the Việt Á scandal (which has an English-language article) where his wife is rumored to be implicated, and the the graft in repatriation flights, which has a Vietnamese-language article but not English. DHN (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, otherwise abstain. Half of his political career is unsourced and almost all of it is unprosed. lol1 VNIO 🧧🐈 ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, oppose on quality - too much uncited text; count this as a support once that is fixed Levivich (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both articles are of terrible quality. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on quality Nguyễn Xuân Phúc is of extraordinarily poor quality. It would take a Herculean feat to get it even remotely ready. Prose is atrocious, sources are practically nonexistant. Curbon7 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Renée Geyer

 * Support Article in good shape, looks ready to post. Vriend1917 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's some uncited statements that prevent me from supporting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The first half of the article is fine, but the second half is very poorly sourced, with about a dozen unsourced statements. The Awards section is also entirely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as further refs seem to have been added, and article seems to be of generally high enough quality. Happily888 (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 10 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added refs for all previous {cn} tags. Happily888 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Thomas (outfielder)

 * Support Excellent work as usual. Well-cited and as holistic as it will likely get. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Molan

 * Support -- article looks good to go. He was indeed the very pattern of a modern major general. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready - Needs more citations; "Early life and education" is unsourced. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Significantly undersourced, especially in early paragraphs and list of works. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you add sources to lists of works? Don't the books document themselves? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure they do. Curbon7 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Close, but not yet ready The second half of the article is fine, besides the Awards section which is partially unsourced. I fixed up the first half a bit, there were spots where the footnote only partially cited the text before it that I think have now been fixed, but it would still benefit from a source spot check. Case in point: I added a cn tag into the 2nd para of the section as the footnote did not fully cite the paragraph. Curbon7 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the cn tag with an appropriate reference. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The lone footnote in the "Early life and education section" cannot support much of the materials in that section (failed a spot check). The footnote is therefore moved up and a few {cn} tags were added there. More than half of the table under "Honours and awards" needs sources, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Citation issues appear to be resolved.  Spencer T• C 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) Arrest of Matteo Denaro

 * Oppose - Similar to my opinion on a similar story earlier this month, the arrest itself is not notable. If it leads to any violence/clashes, then maybe we could talk about the arrest not for its own notability, but for that of the clashes it has caused. Either way, the article is not currently updated enough for a blurb. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who nominated that story, so from the response, I think the consensus is to oppose arrests. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The Italian police only captures the head of the Mafia every 15 years or so.  c o m p l a i n e r  16:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support he was considered "one of the ten most wanted and powerful criminals in the world", the news has been reported in the home page of many important newspapers around the world (The Guardian, El pais, Le monde, BBC news, Folha de S. Paulo, Süddeutsche Zeitung, for example)
 * Floydpig (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the most wanted mafia boss means it is is ITN level. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Arrests can be problematic for us because of the presumption of innocence. But, in this case, sentence has already been passed and it's a life sentence. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Leaning Support after this. I've seen lots of coverage In The News as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Among the world’s most wanted fugitives, this doesn’t happen too often. A semi-similar comparison might be the death of Al-Zawahiri a little while back, which did get blurbed. The Kip (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality This absolutely isn't getting posted until the multiple unsourced statements and even paragraphs are fixed. Also, this is a BLP, remember - so unsourced sntences like "(he) and committed his first of many murders at 18.", "Messina Denaro gets his money through an extensive extortion racket", "He was involved in olive oil production in a corrupt business, which used cheap African labour. " and "...is said to be the father of an extramarital child" can't stand.  There are a lot of "allegedly"s, "said to be"s "believed to be"s and so on.  Needs a lot of work. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality and because we don't generally post isolated arrests. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, oppose on quality right now - We posted El Chapo and Whitey Bulger, we should post this, too: a top-10-most-wanted fugitive apprehension is global news. However, the article is not yet ready as BK points out above; I've fixed a little bit earlier, but there is still more to be done for this BLP. Levivich (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support due to quality The capture of a major criminal, especially mafia boss is quite important, although the quality of the article needs to be improved immediately if this would be posted. Vriend1917 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- there is no real difference between this story and this story. We don't post arrests. The only reason this might be different is because Italy allows trial in absentia, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to post this story. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s a pretty sizable difference between the son of El Chapo, a somewhat important cartel boss, and the actual capo dei capi of the Sicilian mob. The Kip (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject was already tried in absentia, and convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, 20 years ago. He was already a fugitive for 10 years at that point. He was given another life sentence ten years ago. This is the capture of literally one of the most wanted men in the world for decades. Levivich (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support on principle. Already convicted in absentia, and role as the head of the Sicilian Mafia is significant enough to merit a blurb. Article obviously needs a ton of referencing work though. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, one of the most wanted top European mafia criminals. His 30 year-long run is notable as much as his responsibilities and the fact he will get one of the most severe punishment in the world (article 41-bis), and should be specified in the blurb. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, but the article still needs work. It's pretty rare to capture such a major organised crime boss and it made headlines in global media. We have usually avoided posting arrests, sticking to convictions, but he has twice been convicted in absentia and given life sentences, so now is fine to post. Unfortunately there are still several paragraphs of the biography that have no citations, and a section of WP:PROSELINE. There have been a lot of edits in the last 24 hours though, so hopefully those issues can be addressed soon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as this is making global headlines and we're often too stingy to post things on ITN. However, while the article has many citations, it still needs work per Modest Genius et. al. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current state of the article is a bit of a nightmare from a BLP viewpoint. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lateef Afridi

 * Comment - Article could use a little expansion, and one section is unsourced. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please sort out the merging of Latif Afridi and Lateef Afridi. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Latif Afridi is now a redirect to Lateef Afridi. --PFHLai (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I cleaned-up the article as best I could. Sourcing issues appear to be fixed and the article is holistic enough. Man that article was a mess. Curbon7 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Half the page is about his death.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage about the subject's political and legal career; essentially a resume in prose format.  Spencer T• C 03:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Blurb/RD: Gina Lollobrigida

 * Support blurb. Dubbed most beautiful woman in the world. Co-star of Connery, Curtis, and others. Glittering career in various fields. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the quality issues are addressed which I assume will happen shortly with the current level of editing activity. Very influential figure in her fields. Regards So  Why  15:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb nothing in article points to a legacy or other qualification as a transformative figure in the field. I know her name is extremely well known, but the reason to post a blurb should not be on popularity but merit, and that's simply not demonstrated in the article currently (that could be added to resolve that issue, if sources exist for that). --M asem (t) 15:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Article needs improvement, but I don't think this is significant enough to warrant a blurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose RD for now Missing ```sources in just about every single section. Once that's addressed, I'd say weak oppose blurb- certainly a highly notable individual, but still an old woman who retired decades ago (so no extra newsworthiness based on immediacy) and was never close to being the most famous or most acclaimed person in her field. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for RD Referencing is dreadful. Oppose Blurb The community said "no" to Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, both of whom were far more consequential figures in the field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not do one right. Kirk Douglas was blurbed in at eat one other wiki. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "was never close to being the most famous or most acclaimed person in her field" - most beautiful woman in the world https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jan/16/gina-lollobrigida-dies-la-lollo-beat-the-devil https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2023/01/16/gina-lollobrigida-sultry-prolific-actress-who-acclaimed-one/ seems to be meeting this for modelling? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD pending article improvement, but oppose blurb regardless of quality. Not even as notable as some of the recent nominations for which there was no consensus to post. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * <B>Support RD, oppose blurb</b> Not significant enough for a blurb, considering even Barbara Walters wasn’t. 71.125.36.50 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lollobridgida was by far bigger than Barbara Walters. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb She's definitely a major figure but I don't think Lollobrigida is quite the most famous or acclaimed in her field. I don't wish to sound dismissive but there is a more famous and more widely acclaimed Italian actress who is also best known for her 1950s and 60s film roles and her beauty. When the time comes, I'd support blurbing her. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD Significant quality issues. No need to even entertain the blurb discussion until that is improved.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD when fixes are implemented, oppose blurb as per above. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but the article does need some serious work. Maybe RD now and blurb when the article is in a better shape. --jonas (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD and blurb Not in a fit state to post. A lot more citations needed (and has some proseline issues too).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Woman Dies BBC notes her career faded in the 1960s, moved into photography and politics, hardly changed those games. Never heard of her myself, but her article makes clear her film career was nothing to sneeze at, and she was more famous than Constantine II in Europe and abroad. Not who I'd call one of the most beautiful women of any era, but far from ugly; a Photo RD might make sense eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "" I ... what? A person's beauty or lack thereof isn't part of our criteria. That statement comes off as sexist at best. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't help it if many sources and some preceding voters brought up the fact that she was known as a screen beauty in a widely sexist cinematic era. All I'm saying is yeah, that isn't a good reason to blurb someone when they die much later. It is a good reason to remember them with a photograph, since photography is all about capturing physical beauty. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed with . 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I at least get credit for correcting "not what I'd call" to "not who I'd call"? I meant the first revision in an idiomatic way, but still. I have long appreciated the fact that women described as beautiful are people, too, whatever you people want to believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per this sentence in the lead, which establishes her importance over an extended period of time: "." Unfortunately, this article needs a good amount of work to bring it up to main-page standards, including a citation for that quoted sentence (which isn't backed up in the article, as far as I can see). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo RD I think a photo RD would make a lot of sense here as a compromise position, and this subject would be a great choice for one due her symbol as a sex icon and as an empowered woman. Curbon7 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So if you're not notable enough for a blurb, you can still get a photo RD by being attractive. Is that the message I'm getting from your !vote? Jeez, and all this coming shortly after the failed Barbara Walters blurb nom... 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in the Barbara Walters nomination, so I have no opinion there. I'm just saying that Photo RD is a valid option for these marginal cases where it also makes sense. Curbon7 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNPICT: The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. It does not seem to be a consensus either way. But definitely ready for RD. Discussion can continue.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography needs sourcing better than just IMDb. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Have added two others. Take a look.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. I clicked on the linked refs, but I was unable to find the first three films listed in the table (Lucia di Lammermoor, This Wine of Love, and Black Eagle) in the linked refs, and I stopped looking. So, I wonder if the failed verification tag is in order. Some of the films can be found here. Useful? --PFHLai (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a requiremeent, but the most transparent approach to show what is sourced or not is to footnote the individual entries with a specific source(s). —Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mursal Nabizada

 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Article could use a little work, but I think it could be posted. This is not notable for a blurb however, unfortunately this will happen a lot in Afghanistan from now on. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose blurb/RD Per Precarious, this is not notable given the circumstances in Afghanistan, unfortunately and the article does need some work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * support RD; clearly notable; the nomination template boilerplate includes: "Recent deaths of any person ... with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD pending article improvement, but oppose blurb regardless of quality. Not even as notable as some of the recent nominations for which there was no consensus to post. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD once article is expanded, strongly oppose blurb. Mooonswimmer 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Young Woman Assassinated This is a legit news story, as opposed to an already famous person's obituary. Since it happened in a country where journalists and police suck at cooperation, though, the article is probably going to stay too short for me to support a blurb. Support RD and may they find the bastards, whoever "they" are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whatever the hell happened to the "death as the main story" criterion for death blurbs? Is that now just plain not applicable to situations like this, even when there's an actual assassination? Since when did "unless this happens in Afghanistan" become an exception to the rule?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Best I gather, there wasn't exactly a single point, we're still in more of an arbitrary continuum. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After much half-assed analysis, it seems Afghanistan death must come in high numbers or contemporarily with an American political situation to stand a shot at posting. Historically, I mean. The future always has a chance...unless. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is stopping this from being listed, already? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is more or less a stub, and has insufficient coverage about her political career.  Spencer T• C 01:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Less than 180 words of prose? That's too stubby. Anything more to write about? --PFHLai (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gino Odjick

 * Support Well cited, looks good to go. Yee no   (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Just added/replaced a few citations, removed a few duplicated ones. Seems good to go now, although "He missed most of the 2002–03 season due to concussion from a puck hitting him in the back of the head during pre-season practice, and was subsequently suspended in February 2003 by the Canadiens for failure to report to the minor-league AHL team in Utah." could use a better source. Mooonswimmer 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I added an archived version of that dead link, so at least we can confirm what it said. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ronald Blythe

 * Comment Article is well-sourced and holistic. As stated by nom, once sources are added for the works, it should be good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD (and today's Church Times has an extensive obit) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bibliography sections lack sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ted Savage

 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb removal: Pele and Benedict

 * Oppose They’ll roll off when new blurbs get added, as we usually do. The Kip (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works... DarkSide830 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, surely, but no way, per The Kip and DarkSide. Be patient. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that there is no "blurb removal" template. Ongoing items can be removed, but I don't think regular blurbs can be removed without a replacement ready, for Main Page balance reasons if nothing else. Would be good to see something else posted though. Maybe expand the Nepal crash article? Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You can suggest new events that qualify for blurb, that is the only way for them to be removed. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This conversation was already held on the talk page. This is not how ITN works. Curbon7 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not sure what my colleagues are talking about, but it's absolutely possible to remove the bottom two bullet points from the ITN box. It won't break anything to do so. I mean, just look at the front page: the ITN box is already longer than the TFA box, and the top-right (ITN, OTD) is already longer than top-left (TFA, DYK), so removing these two and shortening the ITN box will actually make the main page look more balanced, not less. There is no requirement that the ITN box have a certain number of bullet points or lines. Worst case scenario, we could copyedit the other blurbs to make them longer if we had to, or even just add some line breaks. It's perfectly possible. It's not usually how ITN works -- usually, things just roll off -- but I agree that it's better to remove these now rather than have stale news from last month still on there. It's unorthodox to nominate a removal, but in this case, I strongly support it. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has to balance with the main page (specifically, TFA). Right now it does. Removing two items will imbalance it. Given that the aircrash story will likely be promoted soon with article expansion, then we can remove them. Just how ITN is supposed to operate. M asem (t) 18:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This "it has to balance" argument is nonsense. Here is what the main page would look like if we removed those two blurbs. Everyone can compare it with the main page and decide which is more "balanced". Levivich (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose They'll roll off when needed - indeed Pele will be gone as soon as the Nepal plane crash is a decent article. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because they have been on the main page for a while, doesn't mean we have to remove them immediately. Eventually other major events will remove them from the front page.  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vakhtang Kikabidze

 * Comment A blurb has not been proposed for either individual, notability is relevant only so far as a standalone article existing - otherwise only article quality matters. This article needs work and contains plenty of unsourced statements. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  15:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about Sinikwe Mpofu though, that article is far shorter. I don't understand you guys' priorities, how some Zimbabwean cricket coach apparently has a greater legacy than one of the most famous Georgian and Soviet actors and singers. Synotia (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every statement in this article should be referenced, and Career section still has some citations missing. Ancestory section should be either referenced or removed. Then this will be posted, nothing more is required for RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was shorter but it was referenced. Your nomination has entire sections without any citations. It won't be posted until that is fixed. The current rules are that anyone with an article is eligible for RD, so we don't have to have arguments over whether this person is more notable that that person, and just focus on article quality. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator clearly did not read the part of WP:ITNRD where it says that "". Large portions of this article are completely unsourced. ITN articles don't have to be GAs, but they need to meet at least a basic level of quality. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence about this recent death remains unsourced (date needs to be specific). Many bullet-points in the Discography and Filmography sections are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Yeti Airlines Flight 691

 * Support as an editor updating the article. Major loss of life (45 out of 72) makes it an extremely significant event. I was just typing an ITN nomination myself when I got pinged. Also added picture of aircraft involved. SBS6577P (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also proposing altblurb. SBS6577P (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sadly not that rare of an occurance given the airline involved, but it is generating significant media attention. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   08:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is still a bit short at the moment but all the relevant things are there. --Tone 08:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Article has 6 sentences in the body about the flight and crash itself; insufficient depth of coverage at present that does not meet minimum ITN standards. (Per WP:ITN: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs").  Spencer T• C 09:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's give it time to develop. Tone 09:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer: Article has developed. Changed your mind? A09 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once improved - 40 deaths is a lot, but Spencer is right in regards to article length and quality. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 09:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support at a later date: Needs time for the article to improve and settle down.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The death toll now stands at 68. 86.186.37.137 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support because the crash is easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the newly built airport already has a head start. --बडा काजी (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Admin attention needed. What is there now seems to meet the citation requirements and also the three paragraph minimums. Should be good to repost. Ktin (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Levivich (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There's enough there to post in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tagging the last five admins who have posted to the homepage. @PFHLai, @Spencer, @Tone, @Fuzheado, and @Jayron32. Ktin (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral Can’t remember which, but an ITNR item was nearly not listed due to excessive flags. This has…excessive flags. 65.246.72.70 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant aviation accident, largest in Nepal since 1992, and ATR-72 is operated by dozens of airlines worldwide Ppt91 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now long enough and well referenced, this accident is being widely reported outside Nepal CNN, BBC, RTE Josey Wales Parley 18:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is referenced pretty well, and also its a big news event.  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This news only effects a small number of people and there's no indication that this is going to have any long term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic" बडा काजी (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The death of Pelé had more impact on the world, as cynical as it may sound. Not even Nepalis care about Nepal's aviation safety. Synotia (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but those 72 people had families, and this has sent shock and sadness through Nepal. Not only that, it's being extensively covered In The News. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would never consider 72 people dying in a single incident to be a small number. Your remark appears callous at best.GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Tragic loss of life and support it being on ITN. Although this needs to be updated to say that all 72 passengers passed away. Captain  Galaxy  20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that? 86.187.239.9 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one made it? This is terrible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only affects a minor amount of people. What happened in Brazil a few days ago is more important, it would feel wrong to sideline it for this. --Synotia (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a competition; news tickers roll over, and that's how they work. We don't have a duty to keep surfacing older news if there's newer stories. And I still don't consider 72 lives lost in one incident to be a 'minor amount'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A09 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All 72 people aboard now confirmed dead. Article updated. 86.187.239.9 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I understand this has already been posted, but the article could still use some work, as it's at the bare minimum for ITN right now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Hahn

 * Support Well-sourced and holistic. There are proseline issues, but this is mostly irrelevant for our purposes and should be handled article-side. Curbon7 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and informative. Grimes2 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Femi Ogunrombi

 * Comment Needs some more expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Only 230 words of prose? That's a bit too stubby. Anything more to write about? --PFHLai (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Onley

 * Support Monumental figure in Canadian politics. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As someone who has a disability, he will be very missed, and he was a damn hard fighter for those who has or has had a disability. Urbanracer34 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Good article for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - The article contains a CN tag, and two of the awards are unsourced. These issues, IMO, are not enough to bring down the nomination, but it is preferable to wait until they are fixed, especially that we still have a few days until this item becomes stale. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are the two unsourced awards you are referring to Member and Chancellor of the Order of Ontario? I believe any Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is ex officio Chancellor of the Order and a member as well. Should the former even be included in the Honours and Awards section?
 * If one searches for David Onley in the table of Order of Ontario members here, there is a result. The source also states "The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario serves as Chancellor of the Order of Ontario, and Honorary Chair to the Council." Would this be enough to source both "awards"? Mooonswimmer 19:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I've added it as a source. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. There are still multiple unsourced claims, which I have tagged. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added citations, taking care of most of the unsourced/tagged claims. Mooonswimmer 03:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Since the Canada 125th medal has been commented out since it didn't have independent sourcing, I think it's good to go now. Definitely needs more coverage of his time as the LG, but it's sufficient for the purposes of ITN/RD. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Santokh Singh Chaudhary

 * Oppose Stub. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to being stub quality --<em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  01:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article's a stub. Tails   Wx  03:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We understand that it's a stub, we don't need 4 different people saying that. Curbon7 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article still has not been improved. Curbon7 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alireza Akbari

 * Comment, there is room for expansion (with no lack of material and sources). I'll try to add a few important details. Mooonswimmer 14:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mooonswimmer I think the article has been improved and expanded since. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Regarding the article's sole tag (the {when} tag), Akbari served as Deputy Minister of Defence until 2005. This Reuters article states that: "According to a caption in a video aired by Iran's state news agency IRNA on Thursday, Akbari moved to Britain after being briefly detained and released on bail in 2008. Reuters could not verify if Akbari had moved to Britain in 2008, or when he returned to Iran."
 * How do you think we should rephrase "After leaving office,[when?] Akbari moved to the United Kingdom, where he became a British-Iranian dual national citizen."? Mooonswimmer 13:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should the say that he left office in 2005, and later moved to Britain. We could then proceed to mention the ambiguity about when he moved to the UK. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Cordeiro

 * Support - Article good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Deryck C. 10:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robbie Knievel

 * Oppose - Article contains some unsourced material. Will add CN tags. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Cited some of the material mentioned above. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)\
 * Comment Added and replaced quite a few citations. Only one {cn} tag left. I'm unsure about how reliable EVEL*WAYS, A Daring Approach to Life (published by GraF X Publishing) is as a source. Couldn't find anything solid for the unsourced "Business ventures" section, although a bit more digging might turn up something. Mooonswimmer 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support now that article has been improved. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support — The article seems to be in good shape. – Popo  Dameron   talk  00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still multiple parts of the articles that need citations.  Spencer T• C 05:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a few more. Two left. Should we just have the "Business ventures" section removed? Mooonswimmer 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Has this gone stale? Mooonswimmer 16:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robbie Bachman‎

 * Oppose An indiscriminate collection of information in its current state. Also a WP:COATRACK, seeing as how the "Biography" section is almost entirely about Bachman-Turner Overdrive rather than the story of his life, which is what a biography is supposed to be.  For all the hullabaloo about "article quality", this makes it all too obvious that articles are nominated without regard to article quality. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article contains unsourced material. Will add CN tags. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Citation and prose issues appear to be fixed now. Curbon7 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reginald Cooray‎

 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Awkward at spots, but nothing debilitating. Curbon7 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisa Marie Presley

 * Support - Very sad news.
 * 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:C18F:75D2:3719:418E (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It is the end of an era. Urbanracer34 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely important enough to be on RD, she was Elvis’ only son too. JoeBidenReal1942 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * His what?  Wylie pedia  @ 10:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thats transphobic :) 171.103.249.78 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake, I meant "daughter," sorry. JoeBidenReal1942 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Not only was her father incredibly famous, but she is a well-known musician in her own right and she had ties to many other well-known people, including her marriage to Nicholas Cage.
 * Estar8806 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Something that happened suddenly, and is also sad news.  TomMasterReal  TALK 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - well known. Article looks ok. BabbaQ (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for the usual reason. I've posted multiple CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaarrrgghh Can we please get over the pointless "I've heard of this person and liked her" comments and start to address the citation needed tags? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support She was the only daughter of Elvis Presley, and had many ties to people such as Michael Jackson, she was definitely someone important. 98.250.120.227 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Aaarrrgghh again Can we please get over the pointless "I've heard of this person and liked her" comments and start to address the citation needed tags? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She knew the John Oszajca, man... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the aaarrrggghs—every RD candidate has the text " Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. " appended to it. Focus on quality of the article, not importance of its subject. DecafPotato (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Support - Ad Orientem, @HiLo48, @DecafPotato, there are literally only two CN tags in this article. From WP:In the news:
 * Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There were more than two when I commented. I am not stupid!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem, @HiLo48—Well, I don't see any left, so I'm happy to support now that those issues have been fixed. DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People appear to be adding unsourced content. I just tagged an entirely unsourced paragraph that I don't think was there when I first looked at the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Aaarrrgghh I’m a pirate. Where’s me booty? Support RD by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:A000:E661:747F:16E1:E746:5C29 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Truly an end of an era. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Only one CN left in the article now. ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography needs to be referenced too. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder - ITN doesn't give a rats how awesome or significant someone is when it comes to RD. This isn't the place to give your plaudits or obituaries. Any discussion should focus on getting the article updated, fixed up, and ready for the main page, unless we are considering a full-blown blurb. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - last CN has been replaced with cite. In my view there are no significant issues which would prevent it from being added to RDs. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is a C-class biography in pretty good shape. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We are getting there but the music video table remains completely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss for sourcing it. I don't see reliable sources on it, just IMDb and the like. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd just take it out. I don't think it's integral to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. So now Support  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once ready Still some sourcing issues in the discography section but otherwise the article looks good to me. Moved this to January 12 as well, as she died on that date (and the first reports of her death were also on that same day, at least in the U.S.). Vida0007 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once Discography is sourced I'd personally support but i'd wait until the whole discography section is good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks ready to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Paul Johnson
Oppose - Bibliography needs more sourcing. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 09:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in terrible shape, but does need some more citations (not just in the bibliography). Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It needs some work but there's just one cn tag and many of the bibliography that is not cited does have ISBNs which counts as a citation right? If someone does a bit more work on it, it would be up to scratch, and as it looks right now, I still think it's fairly okay, though I can see why others opposed it. Maybe more work has already been done on it.--SitcomyFan (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update - I don't have time to do a lot of work on this article, but I gave it a very quick clean-up. Sourced the one cn tag. Moved unsourced titles from bibilography to talk page (as it wasn't a complete bibilography to begin with) - they can be moved back into article once sourced. I wouldn't normally dot his but as I said it was only a Partial Bibliography to begin with and needs a lot of work. Otherwise, the article looks well referenced, no other tags, and given this is the last day for this nom and it was kind of languishing, I thought a quick clean-up was in order. If other editors still feel this isn't up to snuff, fair enough, but I think it looks okay - so if it's suitable for the main page, then maybe add your support and/or do some work on it too if you like. SitcomyFan (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai And this one too, though I'm not as sure about it. It still has my support though if it can be posted. SitcomyFan (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sharad Yadav

 * Oppose Sadly, our articles on Indian politicians tend to be very poor and this is no exception. Large blocks of unsourced text and a completely unsourced table which is entirely unsuitable for an article appearing on the main page. The infobox also needs major clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have sourced the table and there has been a lot of improvements made to the article since nom. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, sourcing issues seem to have been addressed since Curbing flagged them. I don't see anything else at a glance that should hold the promotion back. Good work, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * this needs your attention as well; article that has been worked on by editors and meets desired standard shouldn't be left to languish like this. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the article had about 60K organic page views on the day of subject's unfortunate death, which goes to illustrate the magnitude of his popularity. Unfortunately, by neglecting noms like this we do a great disservice to ourselves and to the audience. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Languishing? Come on. Patience, my friend.  We do have older noms below. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for posting, PFHLai, and don't get me wrong, I was concerned that the nom would get stale and be occluded by other more recent deaths. But good to see the entries being arranged in the order of date of posting these days, and not by date of death, which hardly gave older entries sufficient main page exposure. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support A big leader whose death attracted a large amount of coverage. I agree that the nom has done good work with the article. Dympies (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Carole Cook

 * Oppose for now. For a biographical article, it is light on actual biography.  Needs a significant expansion to be considered for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Television and Film sections are unsourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once Filmography is sourced/mostly sourced.--SitcomyFan (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Filmography now almost completely sourced. Film section is fully sourced. Television section not fully, but mostly. BFI and TVGuide sources I found, along with a couple more. Another editor might be able to find more? @PFHLai, is today the last day for this nomination? I might have a look for more sources later if another editor doesn't find them first.--SitcomyFan (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The last day for this nomination is today, January 19th (UTC). --PFHLai (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update - Filmography and article itself now fully sourced! Think this looks good now. SitcomyFan (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai - Can this still be posted? It was marked as "ready" (by someone else) before it rolled off? Article is completely referenced and looks good. --SitcomyFan (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @SitcomyFan While the nominated article may be READY for RD, there is only a single support vote and there are more oppose votes. So, there is no consensus to post. And now, this is late. Please feel free to post an appeal at Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Annette McCarthy

 * Article well-referenced but need expansion IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 13:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it could and should be expanded for sure, but I think it's long enough for ITN for now as it stands. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:C18F:75D2:3719:418E (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good enough now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with my six-sided friend above, the article is rather light on biographical details. I'm sure that her entire life is not sufficiently summarized in 12 lines of text.  This needs expansion before it is main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment/update More information has been added to the article, including some more career info and tributes from actors, also some more personal info, but as mentioned in one of the sources, she was very private about her personal life, so not much info is out there unless another editor here can find more. Most of the info is about her career. I think the article should be long enough now for ITN especially given all the references? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:85B5:AB97:266A:8B4D (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another update - More information, including some personal/biographical information, has been added. I think this as much as can be found now given the actress's prefereance to keep her private life private. But it covers her career in detail and there's quite a bit about her personal life too. Is it considered ready/applicable now? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:2C12:61F4:4248:6BD (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved sufficiently to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still hasn't been picked up by many English-speaking sources. I think it will be as most Twin Peaks actors who die get picked up eventually, so I think this is still within date and could be for awhile until it's picked up more widely, but at the same time, if we're going to post it, it should probably be posted soon. @PFHLai, could you take a look?SitcomyFan (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Beninese parliamentary election

 * Support blurb, oppose article The article is a stub, it has to be expanded if this would make it on ITN. Despite that, this definitely could make it as this election can change the outcome of Beninese democracy. JoeBidenReal1942 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Marking this ITNR; correct me if I'm wrong.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not in a state which is appropriate for highlighting on the main page. It is far too short, and has very little prose about the election.  At this point it consists of a table and a paragraph describing how elections work in Benin.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is way out of shape, and some parts of the article are written as if election results have yet to be announced. Not to mention, pretty short and gives no real detail on the election. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R, though article needs work. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality It’s an ITN/R item, but the article’s little more than a stub at the moment. The Kip (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Usually I would say yeah for a government election, but the article is really short.  TomMasterReal  TALK  03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 09:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good enough now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded ITN/R, but article needs work as per above. -Azpineapple (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality looks good enough to me. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - added altblurb Sheila1988 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok as we have prose on the results. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Added a little more to the results section and merged in the Analysis; marking as ready.  Spencer T• C 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment there's no Aftermath/Reactions section. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While a few editors insist on such a section, it's not actually a requirement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Added.  Spencer T• C 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, good to go now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is more than ready to go. Thanks for adding the Aftermath section. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and covers all the necessary points for holisticity. Curbon7 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(posted to RD): Tatjana Patitz

 * Support The article is in great shape, not even any citation needed templates. Her death / obituary is reliably sourced by Vogue and other possible sources include the Associated Press. Trillfendi (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, per above. Seems to check out. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Still assessed as a stub despite being over 100K in size with 200+ citations. Is this yet another way of projecting that the whole of the project is someone else's problem? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I boldly rerated this article as C-class. Articles getting rated lower than their actual quality are somewhat common, since the wikiproject templates tend to get updated pretty infrequently. Duckmather (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I even think this meets all requirements for B-class and have changed it accordingly. Probably could be a GA if someone wants to take the time to shepherd it through the process. Regards So  Why  11:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I even think this meets all requirements for B-class and have changed it accordingly. Probably could be a GA if someone wants to take the time to shepherd it through the process. Regards So  Why  11:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The sources are good, she definitely was an important supermodel. JoeBidenReal1942 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) FAA system outage

 * Oppose Article is a seriously short stub. It is not appropriate for the main page at this time.  Ping me when it isn't, and I'll re-assess what is there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This banana isn't ripe yet.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As FAA has started green-lighting airports to let flights take off, the core crisis is ended, and while some 3,500 flights were delayed (not cancelled) this becomes a first-world problem that will be forgotten within the week. --M asem (t) 13:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Flights in one country were delayed for a few hours, but have now resumed. Whoop de doo. Article is a stub and there's no sign of any lasting impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - This is similar to the one in the Philippines which wasn't posted (and rightly so). This is no different and any impact would disappear in 2-3 days. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 14:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - its already over, a storm in Atlanta can cause that many cancellations. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * • Oppose - per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lothar Blumhagen

 * Not Ready - Article needs expansion. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 16:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ⬡ Bestagon, I added some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Meets minimum standards, but not by much tbh. Referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Evangelista

 * Support 3055 characters (505 words) "readable prose size", short but in limit; sufficient sourced (5 refs). I'm not enthusiastic, but the article seems to be ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Belting

 * Support Meets minimum depth standards; fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jeff Beck

 * Note Citations needed throughout the article - please fix before talking about blurbs. Joofjoof (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose with regret - far too many "citation needed" tags and unsourced material. A shame. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape. Consider whether a blurb might be a good idea for this gentleman. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess he was transformative in the field of jazz-fusion... you won't get me supporting though, my bar for blurbs is high.- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean in terms of influence, he is looked up at by a lot of rock guitarists as one of the greatest to command the instrument. One has to wonder if we would consider a blurb for Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, David Gilmour, etc. I.e. what field are we looking at when deciding a musician was top of their field? The music genre? The instrument? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If one were to apply the term "legendary" to a guitarist, Jeff Beck's name repeatedly comes up as one that would be so associated. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Page, Clapton and Gilmour are on the classic rock radios (and newfangled equivalents) every single day. Beck's one of those "underrated" legends. Well above a "hidden gem", but still someone you kind of have to seek out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The deal with Beck was that he was a brilliant instrumentalist who failed to catch on with any popular groups, except for some brief stints here and there. Page had Led Zeppelin, and Clapton and Gilmour could both sing.  If nothing else, it's a testament to how good Beck was that he was as popular as he was, given that the bulk of his catalogue are instrumental tracks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He caught on with the subfaction of my family that was fairly popular locally, too. But yeah, contrary to idiomatic opinion, the cream does not always rise to the top. At least guitar virtuosos get the mainstream rub by association and fable, though; it's almost pathetic how often I hear a ridiculously nuanced and moving horn, string or woodwind solo and don't even think to check who's playing. Just some faceless wonder signed to whichever major symphonic/philharmonic/pops recording machine. Sad! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Still too much uncited material.  About 1/2 of the 1970s section, for example, seems to lack any sourcing, and there are sporadic passages from other parts of the article as well that are missing sources.  After someone fixes that, ping me to re-assess. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too much unsourced material.  SN54129  15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Oh my God this is Jeff Beck people! I don't give a tinker's curse about your article issues. People will fix them if we give them a chance. This is JEFF BECK! Same as Jimi Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughan! Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC) just do it!!
 * So fix it - We shouldn't post an article to the main page simply because it will be fixed. If the article quality doesn't meet WP:ITNRD, it is not posted, no matter how high the chances of it being fixed are. Fix it first, and all the opposing !votes will become supportive of the nomination. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 04:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IPs are blocked from fixing anything over there. Still nine tags after three days. Surprised by the lack of effort from regular editors for this guitar titan. 86.187.175.101 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Get an account and become a regular editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.177 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 *  Support  Now that I don't see any CN tags, I support this guitar legend making the RD now that there doesn't seem to be any issues.
 * TheCorriynial (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just checked the article and it has 7 CN tags. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * support - I'm still furious that you are disrespecting someone who is in the Rock and Roll hall of fame twice!! over Elvises daughter of all people. If I knew how to do it I would. So disrespectful. Shame on you. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 7 CN tags is far too much. If you feel so bad about this article not getting to the main page, perhaps you should spend some time improving it, rather than lament this "disrespect" that you're describing. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Forget 7, there's dozens of unsourced statements that don't have the tag. I couldn't even be bothered to tag them all last week because it would have taken too long to filter out which statements in an entire paragraph are covered by the single source at the end. The 1970s section in particular is pretty bad for a BLP. Most of it could be done pretty handily by someone with one of his many biographies, but not in time unfortunately. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there was no way I was up to the task, and barring some miracle, nobody else is. On one hand I lament that IPs were blocked (as opposed to using pending changes), but on the other, I doubt that would have made a difference on the sourcing end of matters. How unfortunate, either way. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support  RD for this two time Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(Ready; Attention Needed) RD: Blake Hounshell

 * Support. The article is thin throughout but there is enough there and it's fully referenced so it's good enough for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Thryduulf. Marking this as ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMO don't think there is enough depth regarding his journalistic contributions, but will leave to another admin to assess. Essentially a CV in prose format, with one additional sentence regarding his reporting ("his reporting on the Arab Spring made him a Livingston Awards for Young Journalists finalist").  Spencer T• C 05:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum requirements for RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Pell

 * Support Article is in very good shape. Fully referenced (although there is one "page number needed" tag"). Page size is 9,877 words, close to the 10,000 word ideal, with 262 citations. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article, lengthy and better referenced than most. Probably could be nominated for GA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Cato censor (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   10:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) Blurb/RD: King Constantine II

 * What about a blurb? He was a king emeritus that was expelled by popular referendum. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, oppose on quality. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 13 for a blurb, 1 weak agree, 11 against 12 supports plus my own. While not Thatcher, Elizabeth II, or anyone quite as notable as they are, he was a king of a nation and also the last king of a nation. I think that merits a blurb. MyriadSims (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 *  Support RD, Blurb undecided/weak agree  Last King of Greece, gold medal winner in Dragon Sailing at the 1960 Summer Olympics. Seems like enough to post for RD. Might be even ITN worthy, but doubt it would pass. Likely still need some minor edits before posting, though. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Last King of Greece is enough to merit a blurb. --2601:249:8E00:420:C1A7:9B99:A5A0:C813 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No blurb This isn't a newsworthy death in the way that Elizabeth II was newsworthy. How many people knew there was a king of Greece? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who does not know who have been the previous rulers of their own country? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant worldwide, like Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because people may not have heard of Constantine II in the west doesn't mean he wasn't a notable figure. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also go with a blurb, he was the monarch before the monarchy was abolished. Article needs work, though. --Tone 22:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was the last monarch of Greece before it turned to a republic. He was an important person in history, and deserves to be posted in my opinon.  TomMasterReal  TALK 00:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality for the usual reason. Once properly referenced I would support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have tagged the article. We are not talking about just one or two missing cites. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb No indication of being a major world figure or transformative or top of their field. (particularly in contrast to the UK royalty). More a curiousity that Greece still had royalty but had long since shifted power to a democratic process. --M asem (t) 01:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually to correct myself the royalty was abolished 40 some years ago, so this is even less relevant as a blurb. M asem (t) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The UK has been through the same process as Greece, just without abolishing it all together. Power shifted to democracy over time. Constantine II was still head of state.
 * I'd also say that the fact that he was the last king of Greece, and that he was also a gold medal winner in the 1960 Olympics helps his case. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - We posted Gorbachev, a former head of state in a system that no longer exists, this is a similar scenario. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gorbachev was not posted because he ran a now defunct communist country, he was posted due to his large influence on world events. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot Gorbachev's influence was due to the fact that he ran the now defunct communist country. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb- He was a very important figure for modern Greek history. He also became know internationally when he won an gold medal in the Olympics. Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was the last king of Greece, yes many people may not know that a Greek Kingdom even existed but he was definitely an important person in modern Greek history, as said above. JoeBidenReal1942 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 30 supports for blurb (both immediate and conditional on article quality), 15 opposing a blurb Seems sufficent enough to post. I may be off on some numbers, but that's just human error.  MyriadSims (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are off. Don't know where you got 30 from. I count 25 at the most, even including Mablestrip's "Note" and The Corrinyial's "Undecided/Weak agree." Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Support blurb Surely the death of any (European) monarch, reigning, abdicated or deposed warrants RD and blurb. If Elizabeth II is our standard for how much coverage a death requires to be posted, how many people will qualify for that? Estar8806 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once article quality issues are resolved. Last monarch of any country is ITN-worthy I would say. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality as he was one of the most significant Greek former heads of state, I believe he merits a blurb. Article quality is not sufficient to post at this time. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The amount of coverage about the death shouldn't be the standard, but the demonstration of importance to the world at large, which clearly was documentable for QEII, but not here. M asem (t) 04:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I don't think having been a monarch 50 years ago is in itself a sufficient reason to blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb after quality improves. Not ready yet. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A country's last monarch is a notable person, so their death really deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality There are multiple completely unsourced paragraphs and even sections. This article needs a significant amount of work to even be considered for posting. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. King or not, he was not, while in office, a figure of international prominence comparable to a Thatcher, Mandela, Pélé, etc.  Sandstein   10:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not a sufficiently transformative figure in history. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Were Shane Warne, Betty White, Dilip Kumar transformative figures in history? Kirill C1 (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They only need to be transformative in their area. Warne and Kumar certainly were. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could argue that Constantine II was a transformative figure in Greek history, being the last king. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my point. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, we'd blurb the death of every head of state from every nation, not to mention plenty of other politicians, for being transformative figures in their own nations. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every head of state or head of government is transformative in their own nation (let alone other politicians), indeed far from it, but Constatine II absolutely was. He was responsible directly or indirectly for the collapse of a democratic government, a military coup and the most acrimonious changing of political systems (monarchy to republic) in Europe since the Russian revolution. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Last king of Greece. There are sometimes votes opposing blurbs saying that it's only "Person X dies at age". Now we can write more than that, that he was last king of Greece - maybe a film will be made about him. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Person X is always given a job description in the format "some people" dislike; all that's changed here is it goes after the name instead of before. That's enough change to make me not want to Oppose it, but not enough to Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. No more or less important than any other head of state of a small country who lost power almost 50 years ago.  That is, not very important at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the article quality is up to scratch. I don't know how more transformative you can get than being a monarch whose actions (in part) resulted in the abolition of your own monarchy - especially when you've previously been responsible for the collapse of a democratically elected government and its overthrowing by a military coup. Unquestionably more important than the average former head of state. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * that's exactly the point. Btw, I wouldn't say he had responsibility for the fall of democracy. Rather that the political instability he generated helped the coup to happen. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note – I see that Death and funeral of Constantine II of Greece is an article. It's a bit short now, but I can imagine it being a lovely blurb target if it gets expanded a bit more. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. There's no way he merits a blurb, I'm shocked anyone even suggested it. He reigned for just four years before being forced into exile, and has done nothing notable since the monarchy was abolished in 1973. Not a major transformative figure and doesn't come close to the Thatcher/Mandela standard. In addition, the article has an orange-level tag because numerous paragraphs are unreferenced, so is not ready for RD. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked that anyone can be so dismissive of him - he is by far the most notable leader of Greece of the 20th century and a supremely influential figure in the history of both that country and of national monarchs. He meets the Mandela-Thatcher standard by a country mile. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ehhh... I don't see this guy on the same level as Mandela. That's an extraordinary claim that needs some evidence. Do kids outside of Greece learn about this guy in school? Zagal e jo (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Taking a brief look at the international news coverage, it doesn't seem like there's very much discussion of this. Certainly I would have expected more based on his biography.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - not sufficient coverage to merit a blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I don't think it's dismissive to require significant coverage of someone's death when deciding whether to post a blurb and for all his accomplishments, there simply has not been any major news coverage, with most news sources treating his death as a miscellaneous news item. I checked various news sites and despite his death only being a day ago, I couldn't find any sustained coverage like we have seen with Thatcher, Pele etc. And I don't think we should start deciding who was a transformative figure, if (and especially if) there is no equivalent coverage in reliable sources. Regards So  Why  18:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb for the same reason we blurbed Elizabeth's death. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Elizabeth II reigned for 70 years across many countries and her family were regularly front-page news around the world. Constantine reigned for nine years, in practice three - and was out of power for nearly 50 years when he died. Being the last ruler isn't per se a reason to blurb either - Gorbachev was the leader of a world superpower and actively dismantled its system rather than being removed from office, so that's completely different. The most similar case I can think of is Michael I of Romania who was not blurbed in 2017 even though his role in his country was far more active than Constantine - he led a coup against his Holocaust collaborator prime minister and switched the country to the Allies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by his talk page, he was blurbed. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD once ready While Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, QE2, Benedict XVI and Jiang Zemin were all blurbed, not every former head of state has been blurbed. The best examples that I could think of are: 1) José Eduardo dos Santos, who was not blurbed but got featured in the RD section; and 2) Fidel V. Ramos, who was neither blurbed nor featured in the RD. I do think Constantine II falls in the same category as them, albeit slightly more notable by the mere fact that he was the last Greek monarch. I don't think he's notable enough to warrant a blurb, but he could still be featured in the recent deaths section (as long as the 15 {cn} tags have been addressed). Vida0007 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first example was posted, while the second example is a bit misleading IMO - In the discussion, it is evident that the reason for not posting was the state of the article at the time, with some comments explicitly stating that he was notable enough for a blurb, or close to being notable for one. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot, my bad. I only used this one as reference for dos Santos's. And yes, I remember the discussion for Ramos (I even commented there), but I think that Constantine II was still not as influential as the two aforementioned leaders (although mainly that was because of Greek junta). However, I would support the RD – after all, he's also an Olympic gold medal winner – but I would switch my vote to oppose on quality for now as there are still a lot of "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed. Vida0007 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not convinced that being the last monarch of somewhere is a sufficient reason to blurb. Not seeing any special or sustained coverage of his death.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose An article that is orange-tagged shouldn't end up on RD. I think you could say he's blurb worthy, as he is both the last monarch and a monarch both exiled and not allowed to return to office by popular opinion, but the article just isn't up to par at the moment. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb once referencing issues are fixed. I think the death of a current or former monarch of any sovereign nation, whether or not that monarchy has since been disestablished, warrants consideration for ITN. Especially given how quiet ITN has been in the last few weeks. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:E8D1:8804:7424:446D (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Constantine was not a major international figure or cultural icon or an individual of unusual renown or accomplishment in a particular field of endeavor. Just having been a former monarch or even the last monarch in a specific country is a much lower bar than what we usually require for an ITN blurb. Tellingly, the news coverage of Constantine's death has been much more limited compared to Benedict XVI or Elizabeth II or Pele, who had recent blurbs. Nsk92 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - The death of a former head of state (and the last of his kind in his country) merits a blurb IMO, especially with us not having new blurbs (and the general decrease in new blurbs) for quite some time now. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I supported a blurb as above, I'll move my !vote to oppose for now until the quality of the article is brought up to par. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not a transformative or influential world figure. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, oppose for now on quality - Not only the last king of Greece, but also an Olympic gold-medal winner, and unique among deposed European royals for being treated by the remaining reigning monarchs as a peer. I would like the blurb to mention his sporting achievement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per TomMasterReal Koltinn (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm improving his article, I hope to have it finished for tomorrow. If someone wants to help me to expand the content and fix the cn tags will be more than welcome. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Last King of Greece. ArionEstar (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I've finished expanding the content and everything is duly cited with RS. There are typo and grammatical errors to be polished, but I think it's ready to be included. Decide whether in RD or blurb, but there seems to be slightly broader support for the second option. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and/or RD Support blurb but time is running out. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Blurb Article citations appear to have been addressed; narrow consensus in favor of a blurb.  Spencer T• C 04:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb. Major figure in Greek politics, and a former head of state. While not all former heads of state/monarchs will automatically get death blurbs, I think the role that Constantine II played in how he became the last Greek monarch elevates him above others (e.g. inexperience and right-wing sympathies that lead to a military coup, failed counter-coup, and exile). Olympic Gold helps a bit too. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How thats consensus, narrow or otherwise, for a blurb is beyond me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There were several opposes that used as argument that other persons who were in reality blurbed were not, so this one shpuld not. I would discard such votes, in fairness one of these was by its author. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I thought this was long since stale, didn't even consider it might be posted so I didn't vote. He wasn't a transformative or longlasting leader and Definitely no consensus for a blurb here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support BlurbFormer head of state who was the last king of Greece. He directly had a role in the dissolution of the monarchy, which is significant. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * His article says he was forbidden from having a role in that, beyond some broadcasting. If anyone is specifically credited beyond "the people", it's Konstantinos Karamanlis. Similar name, but not similar enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Georgia wins College Football Playoff
Comment Do college level American sports championships ever make it to ITN? They don’t seem to be significant. Thriley (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * March Madness is listed at ITNR, but the CFP Championship isn't, for the record. Worth noting that the former is officially NCAA-sanctioned, however; the CFP isn't. The Kip (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * De facto national championship. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thriley: we don't have this year's viewing numbers yet, but ESPN said last year's championship was the most watched non-NFL sports event in 2 years. I am skeptical it beat the World Cup, but it is a pretty widely watched event in the US. Legoktm (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For comparison's sake, the most-watched US broadcast of this year's World Cup peaked at 16.8 million in English and 25.8 million overall.  Sounder Bruce  06:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2020 football championship got posted. The men's and women's basketball championships are on WP:ITNR and regularly posted. —Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Support By far the most one-sided of the 55 national championship games. No team has ever won by more than 38 points or scored more than 62 and the Georgians just went crazy and beat Texas Christian 65 to 7. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Support College football in the US is akin to professional sports in its significance and following.213.151.60.133 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb should include the score, since that was really the most notable part of the game. Per ESPN this was the biggest margin of victory in any bowl game, ever. Legoktm (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 23–2 is a record score?! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru: the final score was 65-7. Legoktm (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. College sporting events aren't terribly significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Record-breaking championship game with high viewership. I wonder how its viewership compares to the 2023 PDC World Darts Championship currently featured?  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  07:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article seems to be on the fringe for inclusion on significance. Maybe if it was a solid B-class I would've gone along. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I suppose the determination of notability is just going to be a matter of disagreement between users but I believe this merits inclusion, especially with such an historic win. Kafoxe (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Of no significance. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 07:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant for MP. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, oppose on quality College Football is massively popular- the average mid-season game between two top-25 teams gets more news coverage and viewership than a lot of ITNR sports items, much less the national championship game- but the article has no prose about the game itself. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose college football championship, not particularly important. Viewership is a weak statistic to use for posting sports championships, otherwise we'd have an endless stream of regionally important, otherwise irrelevant tournaments from large countries like US, India, and China. AryKun (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. We seem to change our mind every year on how significant this is, based on who shows up to bat for or against the CFP.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We seem to change our mind on everything, from what I've seen PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Participation is limited to college students only and is therefore a second tier competition. Chrisclear (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose like every other student sporting competition, which I have consistently opposed for over a decade. This is not the top level of American football (which is a minority sport anyway, in global terms), the competition is open to only a narrow range of athletes, progress in the competition is based partly on a selection committee and yearly rotation (not on-field performance), and TV viewership is not an appropriate way of deciding ITN blurbs (otherwise we'd have a constant stream of reality TV and game show stories). Also, the article has no prose summary of the game. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; article lacks a prose summary of the game in question. Would support based on coverage of the event, which shows significance, however article cannot be posted on the main page based on quality of article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not only on the issues related to being a limited amateur sport and article quality, but also due to the fact that once the teams were decided over last weekend, this result (short of the final score) was pretty much taken for granted. --M asem (t) 13:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance but will need a prose summary of the game before it can be posted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments at the ITN/R discussion. We already post the NFL, so just as we don't post the FA Cup in England, we also wouldn't post the second-tier domestic contest in the States. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this really qualifies as "second-tier" given the amateurism/collegiate aspect of it. I wonder if Arena Football League would be considered the second-tier to the NFL (well, apart from that it just went bankrupt recently). 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support also on the significance of the large victory for Georgia. By comparison, the 2020 game that was posted was far less significant in terms of scoring and lopsidedness. Thechased (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance as one of the major U.S. sporting events of the year. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's college football, we don't post every college major championship, there's too many of them.  TomMasterReal  TALK 16:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Too many in college football? As far as I know, there's just the one - this one. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mikio Sato

 * There is a {cn} tag in the longest paragraph in this short article. I don't know maths, but this paragraph appears to explain the significance of the subject's work. Can someone in the know get more footnotes into this paragraph, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref added! — MarkH21talk 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, MarkH21. This wikibio, with 470 words of prose, is long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig mostly complains about quotes. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this unpostable now that it's been archived? — MarkH21talk 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alsor's support !vote while the nom was still active kept it eligible in my books! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

International Conference on Climate Resilient Pakistan

 * Oppose We did post the floods, I'm not sure that the aid pledge is significant enough for another ITN blurb, welcome though it is.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose - Article quality is amazing, but this is not the sort of news we post on ITN, especially that we posted the floods themselves per above. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 12:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Consovoy

 * Support Appropriate depth, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 08:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. If anyone wants to beef up the single-sentence intro, please go for it. --PFHLai (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: David Duckham

 * The first paragraph in the Later career section needs footnotes, please. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nate Thayer
Comment Appears ready. Thriley (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well referenced and good to go. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Borderline over-reliance on quotes but what's there is adequate.  Spencer T• C 09:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Simic

 * Support Well referenced, looks like a good overview with no significant gaps.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynnette "Diamond" Hardaway

 * How do we handle posting a death if that person shares a page with someone else? 174.113.161.1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The example I've seen is Barry Chuckle from 2018, and I'm getting this information from administrator Thryduulf's comments then: "while a person having an individual article is a requirement for an automatic RD entry, being covered only on an article about the duo or group the deceased was a notable part of (as here) does not prevent them being listed". Assuming the person's considered notable enough as a member of a group to receive an RD post, the practice is to post the name of the person but link to the group article. Blythwood (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could also list her as Lynnette Hardaway, which redirects.  Wylie pedia  @ 06:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Diamond is her WP:COMMONNAME but the RD shouldn't be listed as just her nickname, so a piped link to the duo as Lynnette "Diamond" Hardaway would be best, in my opinion. Kafoxe (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - notable political figure Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems in good shape.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --2601:249:8E00:420:2002:909E:39D5:9C43 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as Lynette "Diamond" Hardaway. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siegfried Kurz

 * Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 07:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets criteria. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bernard Kalb

 * Oppose Some unsourced statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Russell Banks

 * There is an orange-tag asking for sources in the Works section. Some of the bullet-points above the orange-tag need sources, too. [Just added a few footnotes there. Never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)] Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Keshari Nath Tripathi

 * Oppose, article has lots of unsourced content. Sarrail   (talk)  21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is a bunch of CNs within the article <em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  03:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Lots of CN tags. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Adam Rich

 * Oppose Sourcing issues. The article flow is also substandard, placing his numberous drug problems throughout his life before a (too) short section on his acting career.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing and a large tag at the top of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: lots of tags, and lead section issues need to be fixed.  Sarrail   (talk)  18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Filmography unsourced. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Invasion of the Brazilian Congress

 * Wait - Support in principle, since its major news but that article needs serious expanding first.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality article needs a lot of work. Adding altblurb. What makes it even more notorious (and extremely worrisome) is that the three branches of state power have been assaulted. I don't know to what extent it would be considered a coup attempt, because unlike the 6 January or the 23F in Spain, they are not trying to block a transcendental constitutional procedure. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits put oppose in current form, per above. 71.125.62.17 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with form of wording' but Complete and total support for inclusion of the event on the merits that this is a major world event that is ongoing. My support is dependent on revised wording of the form SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternate blurb preferred. Strongly disapprove of language of primary proposed blurb. It is too strong and currently not supported. SecretName101 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have not yet seen this described as a coup attempt. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, but let's let's wait for the article to be expanded. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - While the full scope of the event has yet to be determined, the videos popping up make it clear that this a major event. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 20:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Skyshifter   talk  20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Quality may be low at the moment but this is too important to wait on. Estar8806 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Wikipedia is a work in progress and the article quality may be low at this point, but will ultimately improve as more editors stream in. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll go with the first one but feel free to modify. --Tone 20:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment This is undoubtedly something that should be in the ITN box on the main page, but we probably could have waiting until the key section of the article, the "Events", was fleshed out better. The article is weighed out of balance by background context and reactions, and we can easily do better than that given a few more hours as news develops. --M asem (t) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. The term "invade" seems a bit odd here. If we can change that to "storm" or "seize", that would be better. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Storm would be a definite improvement. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree too. ArionEstar (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not one of the listed sources have referred to these events as a "coup attempt". --Yair rand (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * neither does our blurb. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   00:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess this image is good enough to be added. ArionEstar (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Time to change the pic, I guess. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated with an image of the damage: File:Invasão do prédio do Congresso Nacional (52615636677).jpg.  Sandstein   21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I see now that the entry on the front page reads 'invade', whereas i recall (perhaps incorrectly) yesterday it said 'Storm'. What is the reason for the change?, do news sources about this say 'storm' or 'invade' or use other words? Is 'invade' a more accurate english translation of whatever Portuguese word that portuguese-language sources are using to describe the event? Am curious to hear, I'm not challenging the prose at all. Thanks! QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) Kaffrine bus crash

 * Oppose. Death does not confer notability. Any long term significance is unlikely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, per precedent, death tolls are an important factor in notability. But generally I am uncomfortable saying "This tragedy is more notable than this one because more people lost their lives.". I don't know why, but it seems... sadistic.
 * I think we shouldn't look at death tolls for notability unless they are extraordinarily high, instead look at coverage, precedent, and other factors, which I don't really see here. So, oppose. This is an awful tragedy though, and shouldn't be understated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded This event caused 40 deaths, and is very rare for a country in Africa. We should not be engaging in ethnocentrism, which is what not posting this item comes off as to me. 71.125.62.17 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, if this happened in the U.S. it would be on the main page before the bodies were cold. Few similar incidents have happened in Africa, apart from the Dschang bus-truck crash (2021). Senegal has declared three days of national mourning, which again underscores how exceptional the incident is. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Skyshifter   talk  20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bus crashes in Africa are like shootings in America – a daily occurrence. Here's a bunch of other similar recent crash stories with head-on collisions, lots of deaths, &c. also today; 2 days ago; last week; 4 days ago; last week; a month ago... See also bus plunge. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If a shooting in America kills 40 people, it would be posted. So the argument about bus crashes in Africa being as common as shootings in America doesn't apply IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lack of nomination does not equal lack of notability. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is totally not my point. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Andrew. The indentation might not have been very clear on my part. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality far too short. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - 40 deaths are are far too much to not be covered. Oppose on quality though as the article needs a lot of expansion. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 13:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Suppose per Bestagon, with hopes of seeing this article improved, although the location of the crash may doom the possibility of reliable coverage.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 40 deaths is a lot, so it normally would be posted on Wikipedia. It is not common for this to happen in Africa, so it should be posted.  TomMasterReal  TALK 01:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the article has been substantially expanded; it's currently a stub. --<em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  03:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too short. It has currently three paragraphs of one sentence each. A total of 68 words of prose using 401 characters. This discussion has more prose than the article. Heck! My !vote so far has has more then half of that. If I could think of more to say about it, I could get up to two thirds. I did get up to two thirds! Should I go for more prose then the article? Too late! I already did! online word counters are cool. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but oppose on quality This is important enough to be posted, but the article’s quality isn’t good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is still horribly short. Noteworthy event but time is already running out. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have improved and expanded the article somewhat. Sheila1988 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuri Manin

 * Note: The section on his research needs in-text citations. Joofjoof (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations added. — MarkH21talk 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this looks better now. Voting Support. Joofjoof (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Modeste M'bami

 * A single-sentence lead section is followed by two sections of prose with zero footnotes. Please beef up the intro and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article contains unsourced material. Will add CN tags hoping that it be fixed, but time is running out. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William S. W. Lim

 * Comment: Pretty close; Books section needs either a reference or ISBN for each.  Spencer T• C 04:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Spencer. Done. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good. – robertsky (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Victoria Lee
Nominator's comments: I believe the article is incomplete when the cause of death of a teenage girl is not given. NMasiha (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We work with what's made public, and often the death of a teenage girl is a mostly private affair. Only the intimate details of her pro MMA finishes are required (by us and the law). Also, I don't believe you're the nominator; Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No article can ever be considered as complete as there is always new information surfacing even after someone has long died. We can only present what is out there. Beyond what is available out in the open, it is either primary source (that's if you somehow have first hand knowledge) or speculations. For now, it is what it is. – robertsky (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article good enough. But why is NMasiha pretending to be the nom? The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm marking this as ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 08:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sinikiwe Mpofu

 * Support Sufficiently sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

 * Support. This was a historic event as this many rounds haven't been required since before the U.S. Civil War. It's had extensive news coverage, and is worthy of being placed on the main page. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We wouldn't post an equivalent story for any other country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker of the House is an important role, and we post election results from much smaller countries (Fiji recently) all the time. The way this was conducted hasn't happened in a century; it's not your standard speaker vote. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't say that smaller countries aren't as important. That's was pretty much my point. There's nothing special about the result. The real story here is probably that American politics is in a mess. Where is the article on that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone saying that smaller countries are not important - although it's unrealistic all the countries have the same weight. Anyway why making such a fuss? It's not even the point of who's more important. And I'm frankly baffled by that comment about American politics, which is totally useless. Please, stay on the matter. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So what DOES this event mean in the long term? HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. But it does mean that we'll probably see another political realignment. The GOP is not in a good spot. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - first time it's happened in 100 years. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Took a little longer than usual. The US has a system unlike a lot of other countries where it's a long quicker typically to form a government. The length of time/number of ballots even is not that unprecedented, nor was the eventual winner. Nothing-burger story that has no lasting impact and tells us nothing we didn't already know about US politics. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - a mainly American event certainly, but still a notable, historic event given the circumstances, who made news around the world. The blurb should say that it's been 150+ years since the last time. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So what? This has zero long term impact. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's funny that you say that, since this has literally been 150+ years since the last time something similar happened. We won't see such a thing, probably, at least for decades. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat - So what? This has zero long term impact. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I made clear how this actually has a long term impact. It's up to you to figure out where in the text, if you can. Have fun. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not an answer. Did the US government shut down? No. Did the President lose his executive powers? No. Did the Supreme Court have to step in? No. What long-term impact has this effected outside CSPANs viewing figures? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)￼
 * It doesn't take a catastrophe to end into ITN, Doktorbuk. Also, your definition of "long term impact" is not absolute. We won't see such a thing at least for decades, this is already having a long term impact. By extension, the event marks a partisanship in the GOP which, even looking back, is sure to have a long term impact.
 * I, as a European, 6000 kilometers away, really wonder how you can flaunt certain arguments against this. Lone Internaut (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to pin down "long term impact". Nobody here can see a long-term impact, the Ink is barely dry on the documents confirming him as Speaker. There have been no consequences to the House, nor the running of the levers of governance. I can't see how this is front page worthy when it's taken less than a week for one house of a Parliament to choose a Speaker. That's not news, it's admin. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally the first bullet point of WP:ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." There is nothing in WP:ITNCRIT that we should speculate on an event's impact when deciding to post or not, however. We cannot by definition know the impact because that is the future but there are quite a lot of people in various news sources who argue that this indeed will have long term impact (such as Dana Milbank whose recent op in the WaPo is titled "To save himself, McCarthy just destroyed the House"). Regards So  Why  14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - While the speaker itself isn’t really ITN, when combined with the amount of rounds unseen for more than a century and a half, it makes it much more important. DecafPotato (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How? No rules were broken. The process worked. The expected result was achieved. The long term impact will be zero. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose and counterproposal: Hakeem Jeffries has been elected minority leader of the United States House of Representatives with 212 votes in almost every round of voting. --Enyavar (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of parliaments elect speakers, so this isn't remarkable Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is remarkable because of the power the Speaker of the House has in the US vs. other countries. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If an election is not on ITNR it is a good statement of measure that results of it are not considered particularly notable for ITN, especially when it is below the level of head of state/government (whoever holds the actual executive power). Speakers have not been posted on ITN [in recent times] at all regardless of the unusual circumstances that might have lead to their election. The situation here is the same (not to mention the outcome expected) and I am not convinced that we need to move away from ITN precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not an event of significance; the event of significance was the Republican party winning a majority, which we posted. Given that, the identity of the speaker is just intra-party squabbling. This isn't even comparable to post-election coalition-building in other countries, as the party's majority was assured. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We did not post the GOP winning a majority. Or we did, but then it was pulled for no good reason and never reposted, despite people requesting it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A domestic issue, not notable on the world stage. Not a historically high number of ballots. Would not pass if nominated for any other country. The US is not global. Wikipedia is not American. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some comments suggest you others are the ones obsessed with the United States... Lone Internaut (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Please do not... Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Also, the US is not global, but it is part of the globe. ITN applies to the US as much as it does anywhere else. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Rockstone my vote is not solely against because it's the US. It's a factor, of course it is. What's happened is a democratic vote inside a democratic parliament for a Speaker. That's all. A democratic, adminstrative decision. Yes, it's taken a week and the media have baked up a cake of controversy, but that's all it is. Everything around it is because, being American politics, there are various narratives about Trump and Biden and this and that, it's all inflated and blown up to appear notable, to appear historic, to appear like there are long term consequences. But take away that and it's just a vote for Speaker that lasted a week; we wouldn't post that for any other country. We shouldn't because it's the US House of Representatives. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)￼


 *  oppose and close per hundreth time I don't know what was not clear from the two discussions that have already taken place. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with a nomination doesn't mean you should misuse WP:SNOW. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above,and my point last time. Just because something unusual happened during the process doesn't mean we should break precedence to post this mostly procedural story. Same as the nomination of Kavanaugh story really. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly in the news much more than the existing blurbs, which are all stale. And the argument about other countries is false.  Some countries have a crude system in which just one person wields power – African despotisms and totalitarian dictatorships.  But sophisticated democracies and republics like the US have systems which are deliberately constructed to prevent such concentration of power.  The EU has three Presidents and a large parliament and we recently ran a blurb about it.  The Swiss have a Federal Council and we recently ran a blurb about that.  So, there's plenty of precedent for running a similar blurb about the US's complex politics.  ITN's rules state clearly that one should not "Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country" and so such opposes should be discounted. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Your only shot was if it dragged on for months or years. Instead, it resolved itself rapidly, with the outcome everyone expected. Breathless gawking by the 24 hour news cycle does not make something noteworthy. Though I do appreciate the irony of repeatedly nominating the exact same thing over and over, hoping for a different result. Danthemankhan 08:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- it's over. It's in the news. It was historic. I get that it's an American news story, but we can't ignore stories just because they happen in America. I'm tired of the anti-American bias on ITN (which is probably a good-faith effort to counter systemic bias, but is still annoying). -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support, it recieved worldwide coverage and is a historic event. Sahaib (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is still not a head of state or head of government position, and the process, while lengthy, did not break any records. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I don't think a consensus would build on this one (as seen in the plethora of oppose votes on this particular nomination and the previous ones). Vida0007 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - It appears this has become another debate on whether or not ITN is being too America-centric. If I am to offer a controversial opinion, I think an election like this holds more weight because it is American, and like it or not, internal American politics have a gigantic impact on the rest of the world. This is literally In The News, is being talked about, and will have a considerable effect on not only American congress, but the world. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am quite aware that the US version of Speaker has quite a bit more power and/or influence than those in equivalent positions in other countries, but given that this is a Republican majority electing a Republican Speaker, I can't see that it rises to the level of ITN. The only thing that made it even vaguely "in the news" was that the process was somewhat more torturous than usual - would we have posted it if McCarthy had been elected in the first round?  Almost certainly not; so I can't see why a bit of internecine squabbling gives us any more reason to do so. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm usually a proponent of "we should look at what's actually in the news for In The News", but in this case, it's still an election for a federal legislative body's leader of the person who was always going to win that election. The impact is minimal, and the historic aspect of how long it's been since such a protracted election took place is nothing more than a piece of trivia in the long-run. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't fall under WP:ITNR, and I'm not convinced that the fact it took a few days longer than usual makes this an exception. My !vote has nothing to do with country. — Coolperson177 <small style="color:#b40808">(message &#124; about me) 13:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Najor story in reliable news outlets. This was an exceptional event. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Arguing that something that is objectively in the news (it was for example the first item on my German news broadcast) should not be ITN because of some arbitrary restrictions is silly. There is no rule that ITN cannot cover this event and just because we previously did not, does not mean we can't. In fact, the very reason we did not feature previous elections was that they were run of the mill elections that were not in the news. And yes, we should and would not have featured this one if McCarthy had won on the first attempt. But that is the whole point. He did not and in the end, it was the most contested election in over 150 years with news top of the page coverage all around the world (e.g. Tagesschau.de (Germany), LeMonde (France), Corriere della Sera (Italy), El Pais (Spain), Times of India, Japan Times, Sidney Morning Herald (Australia) etc. pp.). I would suggest emphasizing the historicity of the vote in the blurb, e.g. by mentioning it needing the most attempts since 1859-60. Regards So  Why  13:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The non-election was rightly rejected, as would have been the non-weird election, but an election after 14 non-elections is weird enough to be In The News for several days in Canada (and elsewhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This farce was very entertaining but I don't think it rises to an ITN level of significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A non-McCarthy win would have been notable enough, but this is basically just a routine procedure that happened to take a few days longer than usual. Teemu08 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Turned into a big nothing-burger. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has 15 layers of cheese and spam. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You've still gotta have the beef, my friend. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a quarter-pound of beef over whether to beef up tax enforcement or beef up border security. More "manufactured" than "organic", of course, but that's life in Washington. Nothing's been squashed, even if "quashed". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The buildup to this is just political realignment. As HiLo said once again, this is not something we would see posted in other countries. I'm sympathetic to votes that complain about anti-American bias, but the fact is that the event on its own still needs to demonstrate significance, and I'm not certain that it does. This is evident by several of the oppose !voters asking where the long-term significance behind this non-ITN/R election is, and not getting a straightforward answer. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple votes have not happened in a century, and there are election results and leadership changes from other countries all the time at the legislative level, let alone from the country that has the largest GDP and is a world leader in numerous other categories. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing blockade of Artsakh

 * • Support event been ongoing for a while, seems to be important enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the third time this has been nominated in as many weeks. Additionally, your second to last sentence in the nom is leaning into aspersion-territory. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll remove that, but I will say that consensus sometimes cannot form because a topic is related to a very hot conflict, which I do not think is a legitimate reason to keep something out of ITN, and that if it does, then something is broken here. RaffiKojian (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You've already nominated this, and consensus did not form to post. There are other far more extreme conflicts going on around the world right now. Being argumentative and making accusations is not going to win your proposal additional support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality... again. "and even", "gives additional reason to doubt", etc. Blockade timeline is also pretty much just a dotpoint list. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Oppose on article tile and article quality. This was already nominated, with no consensus, and that seems unlikely to change. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not being regularly updated. Most recent update in timeline appears to be from Dec 31, so this would not meet criteria to stay on Ongoing. Previously was interested in a blurb item for this, but no consensus for this at a previous nomination, and IMO a blurb for this would now be stale.  Spencer T• C 07:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I personally support this, but I think it is going to keep getting shot down as long as it uses the 'Artsakh' title. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing, fairly minor compared to other news happening around the world, article needs work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - On quality and notability, and per others. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

So am I allowed to withdraw the nomination? It seems there's a consensus :/ Either way I would appreciate feedback on what specifically the article could use in terms of improvements so I can try to work on it (you alls help would be fantastic as well). And yes, maybe be back in a week - though I really hope it's not ongoing by then. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny Kaleikini

 * Support article is ready to go _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Snow

 * Support - article is in good shape - should be posted. Nfitz (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. Many bullet-points after the prose are unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dick Savitt

 * Support, the article looks good to go. Sahaib (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the guy looks like he's quite famous and yes, should probably be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squattuh (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Grand Slam Finals/Performance Timeline needs a reference (didn't see it mentioned in the prose or covered by a ref there).  Spencer T• C 17:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tables lack sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shen Lyu-shun

 * Support Well-cited. Mostly holistic, besides a big hole between 1981 and 2008; that said, the important bits are well-covered. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to find some more information about that period in between and have added that to the article.  Spencer T• C 07:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good for RD. NMasiha (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gianluca Vialli

 * Support, article seems fine. Sahaib (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks decent and should be good to go once the cn tags are fixed. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - No major issues with the article that I can see, looks like missing refs were fixed. --<em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  19:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to go. Vida0007 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced enough now Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

 * Oppose and snow close no, not again. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as it is notable. BBC News, the world's largest broadcast news organisation, covered it extensively and is still covering it. Sahaib (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, perhaps list it as Ongoing until one is elected??? This hasn't happened since pre-Wikipedia. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is notable by any definition of the word. The most powerful government in the world is unable to function. Initial opposition seemed to think that it would blow over quickly but it hasn't. As such we should post this like we should any instance when a stable government is rendered unable to govern. Idislikenames (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to point out again that 'notable' is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, not inclusion on its homepage. Using it as a generic 'hooray-word' diminishes the utility of its particular application in WP:GNG and similar places. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and snow close This is getting quite obnoxious. A repeat nomination only 2-3 days after the previous one is over the top. This is a global encyclopedia and whether or not the US is the "most powerful government in the world", this perception of power is not relevant for ITN purposes. It's difficult to believe a similar nomination for the position of speaker in most countries would be posted to ITN. Most people would just have the common sense not to nominate it in the first place. Chrisclear (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not over the top given that going past 11 ballots hasn't happened since before the Civil War. Since there doesn't appear to be an end in sight, it's technically an ongoing event at this point, so if it doesn't get a blurb, it should at least be placed there. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability isn't the election. Your right nobody outside of the US cares about who is the speaker of the house. The notability is that the government is incapable of action. I'd like to think we would at least nominate any event where any government was rendered unable to take any action. Idislikenames (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point in theory, but thanks to the Separation of Powers, the US has a functioning executive branch and thus the government can continue to take action. However, it's my recollection that during the 2010 UK government coalition negotiations, we posted an interim 'Conservatives have the plurality' headline for the election itself, and then replaced it with 'Cameron becomes PM' one once the negotiations were done. The fact of the negotiations themselves didn't make the home page. In this case, we already posted both the legislative result (in 2022) and the head of state/government one (in 2020). This more junior role wouldn't make the headline when elected, so it certainly shouldn't when not elected. I'd also be interested in knowing what we've done about the government stalemates in Belgium over the years. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For better or worse, ITN doesn't post things just because they're in the news, we assess the significance of them. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, which gained a lot of headlines but was eventually pulled from ITN, the ongoing comedy at the House of Representatives is peculiar and unusual but not of lasting significance. The Republicans control the House, we already posted that some time ago, and who ultimately becomes Speaker isn't something we'd ever usually post. The oft-quoted adage about "better suited to DYK" probably applies to this article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We did NOT post the results of the House election. Or more accurately, we DID post the results, but then it was pulled and never posted back despite many of us asking for it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  11:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support, or alternatively, as per DrewieStewie, post in Ongoing. This IS In the News, and most of the opposition seems to be arguing that we wouldn't post this if it was happening in another country, and that's simply not true. We posted Truss' resignation, and Johnson's resignation, even before they actually did resign, and even before the new PM was chosen. This is no different; in fact, it's the same basic process. The Speaker is not as powerful as a PM, since the PM is head of Government and the executive, that is true, but until a Speaker is chosen, the House cannot do anything whatsoever, which has paralyzed half of the Legislative branch of the US Government. That's notable, especially since this hasn't happened since 1923 -- before any of us were alive (I'm guessing). I find that ITN has a huge bias against posting American news (for example, we posted, and then pulled, the blurb announcing that the GOP had won the House). It's annoying, I know people are trying to avoid systemic bias, but that doesn't mean we should go the other way on this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify my thinking: the reason this was closed before was that while three rounds of voting was historic (it was the first time it had happened since 1923), it wasn't notable enough for ITN and it was looking likely that the GOP's temper-tantrum would end and the far-right members of their caucus would fall in line. Now though we're on 11 rounds and there's no end in sight, and the House has not been able to do basic business (like put people on committees). That's why it's been proposed: it's now a story with actual effects. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support if not a blurb, then ongoing. I think people are missing the point here.  The story here is the historic nature of this deadlock, not the deadlock itself. The longer it goes on, the more of a story it is.  This is getting worldwide attention, not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. So long as this portion of the Main Page isn't named "body counts, national elections, and sporting results", there is a place for items about unusual, highly newsworthy events. And despite the continued insistence of some, "avoiding US-centrism" still does not mean "pretending that things that happen in the U.S. aren't important". --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - 100 years since this last happened. That's newsworthy. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I still don't see this as having an overall impact, so far it just seems to be bulls on parade. We can wait until it causes an impact on the wider public (government shutdown, default, gigantic custard pie fight, power-sharing agreement) and then post. Blythwood (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the point. The editors above speak of an impact on the governance of the country but don't point out what the actual, ongoing consequences of this are. It just seems that the most salient thing now is the symbolism and the (irrelevant and typical) party political drama. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The House can do nothing else until this is resolved, paralyzing the government of a large country. Some of those in Congress holding this up see this as desirable. Even the Senate can do nothing other than confirm judges until this is resolved(bills they pass can't be voted on by the House). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * but the President of the United States continues to maintain executive powers and the States continue to legislate thanks to the -enviable- federal constitutional system. So there is no "paralyzed government" at all. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If something urgent comes up that the President need a new law to address, the government is paralyzed. This is why it is reported as such. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This proposal was already closed below. But more than that - we don't post this when they succeed in electing a Speaker; why on earth would we post when they fail? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because they have not only not failed in 100 years, but are failing in a historical manner. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'In a historic manner' is a bit WP:CRYSTAL for my tastes. We have no way of knowing, yet, whether history will view this as an amusing footnote, or part of 'events leading up to...' with lots of flags and arrows. And many things occur for the first time, or the first time after a long hiatus, without making the front page. The relevance of the long duration presupposes the relevance of the event itself. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not looking forward to see it's historical, it's looking backward. I believe this selection is already sixth on the list of most ballots required to choose a speaker(and it could increase further today)- and again, this hasn't happened in 100 years. Saying we don't know how the future will view this is an argument to not post anything at all about any event. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the election is finished. I was leaning towards oppose at first, but I am currently rethinking my stance on this one; however, if this would be blurbed, I think there should be a definitive result first, much like in other elections that have been blurbed in the past. For the suggestion to put this as “ongoing,” I would support that in theory, although I think that should have been done last Tuesday/Wednesday as it now appears that a deal between McCarthy and the rebel Republicans is about to be reached. Vida0007 (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A parliament unable to choose a Speaker is not notable. This is a domestic issue. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW only applies if the consensus is very clearly swinging unanimously towards oppose. This is not the case here with multiple substantive support !votes. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed :) doktorb wordsdeeds 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We couldn't post this as a blurb, because if we post it and they happen to successfully elect a Speaker the following day, it would immediately become dated. At that point, the discussion would then turn to either pulling the blurb or updating it to reflect the successful election. And I might not be best friends with, but he's 100% right - we wouldn't ever consider this for any other country.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would. I absolutely would. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear, but we need to actually go out and nominate those other instances in order to provide a data point, otherwise we are just talking hypotheticals. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - Per Vida0007. The election will be notable once we get a result, as of now it's just some more domestic political drama PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, Notable news. Alex-h (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: too US-centric. This is not really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things; they don't have a speaker right now because of some in-party squabbling, which is an oddity, but presumably they will have one soon and life will go on as if nothing happened. If similar, offbeat domestic politicking were happening in say the parliament of Brazil or Indonesia (which have populations comparable to the US), I highly doubt we'd be here having this discussion. Endwise (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We wouldn't post a new speaker even if they had been elected on the first attempt, so 'no speaker has been selected yet' is even less of a story. I don't think ITN has ever posted the selection of speaker for any other legislature, let alone deadlocked selection processes. Just because the US House has disfunctional procedures, and we're currently in a quiet new period, doesn't mean we should treat it any differently. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now . I disagree with those who think this is not newsworthy, US-centric or whatever. It's something that has not happened in more than 150 years and something that has attracted coverage all around the world in a way that normally internal proceedings of a national parliament do not (e.g. SZ.de (Germany), LeMonde (France), even the Italian Corriere which dedicates most of his homepage to the death of Gianluca Vialli speculates on what will happen). However, I agree that the news story is more about how long it took, so we should wait until the proceedings finish; ideally, we also know then how historical it really was. Regards So  Why  13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would point out that this more significant than similar instances in the parliamentary system, as the speaker is considerably more powerful. The news here is the MAGA movement has triggered such a schism in the two-party system that is it now preventing governance for the first time in a century. This is the most salient symbol yet demonstrating that we are not merely witnessing intra-party squabbling, but the unmaking of the America political system. HOWEVER, this is just a moment in that long process; not the beginning or end. A Speaker will be chosen eventually, but it will do nothing to settle the conflict. The concessions being sought show the splinter group intends to keep the new speaker on a very short leash.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nate Colbert

 * Support Sufficient sourcing and coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Well sourced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) World Juniors

 * Comment - Did we blurb the 2022 Championship? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Much as I enjoy ice hockey, ITN has consistently avoided posting junior-level competitions in any sport. We stick to the highest level of competition in each sport and that's not a convention I want to change. The IIHF World Championship is already on WP:ITNR; I don't see a case for posting the under-20s version as well. Besides, this year's competition wouldn't have got anywhere near as much attention if Canada didn't make the final (or if Bedard wasn't playing). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As much as this is true, and I also agree with this - the Olympics is an obvious exception as not being the highest level of sport.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Not sure if this meets notability, but the DIII section needs work either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not the top level in the sport. I am generally opposed to any junior-level sporting events being posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Events that are not top-level can be posted if they have a large following, e.g. NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament. Is there evidence that anything similar applies here?—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Buddhi Wickrama

 * Oppose for now Article length is fine for our purposes. However, the "Selected television serials" and "Filmography" sections are almost entirely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Quentin Williams

 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as I do not see any sourcing or other issues. Sahaib (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively short but career was cut short early by his premature death.  Spencer T• C 17:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

El Chapo's son arrested

 * As a general rule, we refrain from posting arrests to ITN.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks for telling me. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - Single arrests are generally not posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb has been updated. This is far beyond a single arrest; there was a huge gunfight in Mexico where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. Article is updated. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have subsequently seen further reporting on this, corroborating the extensive battle. I now support this proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Didnt he get arrested a while ago? Koltinn (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He was arrested and shortly released during a gunfight with the military. I kindly ask you re-evaluate the blurb again since much more as updated. There was a huge gunfight in Mexico where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest close per above. Obviously good faith nomination but based on longstanding precedent here I don't think there is any chance that a consensus to post will develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there - There have been more developments since your vote. There was a huge gunfight in an attempt to free him where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. If this is enough to reconsider your decision, please let us know as others have as well. Thanks, MX ( ✉
 * Striking my oppose and moving to neutral based on recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• ✎  ) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - As much as I think Mexico's drug war is under-represented and I would want this posted on the mainpage, I don't think this passes the bar. The first arrest could have, given that Culiacan went under siege by cartel members and Ovidio was also released by higher government orders to avoid more bloodshed. That arrest, release, and the chaos that ensued was notable. But this re-arrest may not be as notable standalone. There's another Mexico story that could make it to the mainboard if we expand and nominate: 2023 Ciudad Juárez prison attack. Ping me if you want to work on this together. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 02:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, conditional support Support - I would support this for a blurb if there an article on the arrest and aftermath. The Sinaloa Cartel carried out several attacks in Culiacan and authorities cancelled flights and travel throughout the entire state. There were road blockades with burning vehicles in 19 points across the city, in addition to attacks to airplanes, businesses, etc. It was similar to the 2019 incident but at a smaller scale, yet still notable. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 05:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was for this reason I nominated it. The arrest seems to have caused a lot of civil unrest in Sinaloa. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Arrests in itself are not notable. But arrests where large organize crime groups cause civil unrest across an entire state in Mexico, that is notable. These arrests and violent aftermaths are very particular to Mexico and are still quite rare (i.e. reserved for top cartel bosses). This was on the front page of international outlets. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Especially as this has claimed 29 lives, unfortunately. We've posted nominations of this threshold before. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Not a notable news. Alex-h (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? I think others would appreciate your opinion instead of a drive-by oppose. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Updated with new altblurb following battle, nom might be relevant enough to meet requirements now. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If violence continues over the next few days, it may be more logical to put in Ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Official sources claim there were 29 dead (10 soldiers, 19 cartel members) and 35 injured. An Aeroméxico Embraer jet was shot at while taxiing and was forced to abort take-off. Generalized unrest and looting were also present. Several blockades in Culiacán, Los Mochis, and Mazatlán etc. It was a major event in the Mexican Drug War. --2806:109F:1:2923:D578:C5DF:76F7:7F10 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1. This is more akin to a battle in a military conflict than an arrest. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready. With 4 Supports (5 if you include nom), and 2 Opposes that were made prior to this story's development, this is ready for the main page. Article has been updated. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The unrest occurring is major enough for an article. I created a draft: 2023 Sinaloa unrest. Thriley (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for only ALT1 or ALT2, as that provides necessary context.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. The newsworthy thing isn't necessarily just his arrest, it's more the violent military conflict that has ensued. Endwise (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - His arrest is not notable, the clashes following the arrest are, so I'd like to see 2023 Sinaloa unrest bolded, but it is not of sufficient quality. So for now, I oppose posting. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with above that the unrest article is the appropriate target, but it needs rewritten to an encyclopedia format.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2. Many victims makes it notable for main page. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: David Gold (businessman)

 * Comment: Needs a couple citations, resolution of the orange tag, and the bullets about children should be converted to prose. Additional detail about his business career would be a plus but what's there meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alan Mackay-Sim

 * Comment: Need expansion regarding area of research interest.  Spencer T• C 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosi Mittermaier

 * This is still breaking news, let's wait for facts to settle, - I ran into edit conflicts so will certainly not be the only one, and I only did the normal adjustments, have a sentence about her death with a ref, fix tenses, fix the place of birth. She has in German what would be a Good article here, - I hope for someone to get some of that here. I have no time, at least not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be complete and sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Some major prose issues; the article contradicts itself ( vs ); formatting, while generally out-of-scope for our purposes, needs a redux due to the very short paragraphs and sections. Additionally, the results sections need to be sourced (WP:ITNQUALITY) . Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The contradiction was there only for minutes, while fixing an edit conflict. It would have been easier to do that than making a note here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the page history so I was just commenting on the current version; I typed out that op before I saw your message above, as well. Curbon7 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lede mentions that she was a "sports ambassador and non-fiction writer" but I don't see that mentioned elsewhere in the article. Any chance we can incorporate any of the info from the de.wiki article into this one?  Spencer T• C 18:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I took that from the German Wikipedia. The "writer" part is covered by the section Publications, and the other is perhaps a euphemism for advertising, will change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, per which also has that in 1997 she was a declared a national ambassador for sports, but I believe that is kind of marginal. Please add if you disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sim Wong Hoo

 * Support Looks good to post. Rest in peace, Sim. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good, I support. <em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 08:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Joseph Koo

 * There are multiple {cn} tags in the prose. The bullet-points after the prose need footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 PDC World Darts Championship

 * Comment Largely good but a few issues in the representation section. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 23:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the representation section is fixed. Unnamelessness (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to existing tagged WP:OR concerns in the "National representation" section. The issue looks the same in last year's page too at 2022 PDC World Darts Championship. As an aside, as MOS issues are not considered "orange level" for WP:ITNCRIT, there are MOS:FLAG concerns for the entire page, at a minimum: —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although the Representation section has since been WP:REFBOMBed,. it still lacks sources that support this breakdown of rounds by nationality. As such, it remains WP:OR and an WP:UNDUE representation.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the matter of flags. While they are fine for competitors, their use on the TV stations fails MOS:FLAGS (there is no national representation there) M asem (t) 22:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R, article is of good quality. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks good, especially as there is adequate and well-referenced prose describing the event itself (usually the major hold-up for most of these kinds of events). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in excellent shape. I've removed the orange-level tag from the 'representation' section because I don't think it was warranted - simple counting is not original research per WP:CALC. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The talk page issues regarding that section were still not resolved. I've placed an NPOV tag there. —Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only issue on the talk page is you demanding a reference that splits all the competitors down by nationality. Given there are already references for the nationality of every player, and counting them is not original research, I still don't see the issue. There's certainly no signs of any NPOV problems. There's nothing that would merit an orange-level tag or should hold up posting on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR item and article's in good shape. The Kip (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violates MOS:FLAGCRUFT as there seem to be over 500 of them. As I understand it, this is a professional event in which competitors represent themselves rather than a country.  Giving undue weight to flags in this way is excessive nationalism contrary to WP:NPOV.  One might equally have symbols representing their age, ethnicity, religion, sex or other characteristics. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've ever seen FLAGCRUFT invoked in an oppose vote at ITN/C, including for the egregious F1 articles. If you want to suggest we change that practice, I'll vote for it. But we shouldn't hold this nomination to a standard that does not exist.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's some flag-waving at F1 Grand Prix such as the national anthems at the podium ceremonies and the orange flares for Verstappen. But the teams are corporations rather than nations – Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull &c.  I'm not so familiar with darts but, checking the BBC report, it all seems to be about the individuals with little emphasis on the nation, sponsor or the like.  The hundreds of flags in this case are therefore not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, as above. We do expect mainpage articles to meet a certain minimal standard of quality, and I find nationalistic flag-waving particularly offensive.  Sandstein   18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:FLAGCRUFT as stated above. It's not enough that we have a prose update; remember quality also takes into consideration that the article has to meet encyclopedic standards. There's no reason for those flags to be listed there. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this event has been routinely posted with all the flags. F1 was just posted with a sea of flags. None of those noms even hint at this objection. This reeks of bad faith.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per GreatCaesarsGhost. The flags are not an issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are if you are concerned about WP:NPOV, which is the policy that MOS:FLAGCRUFT cites. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I was unaware that "must conform to every little piece of nonsense in the MOS" was a valid oppose rationale. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I do not believe that the article even violates MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Aside from anything else, the flags prevent the article from deteriorating into MOS:BLUESEA. The MOS specifically outlines how FLAGCRUFT can emphasise "the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities"—forgive me for asking which other qualities could possibly be overshadowed? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not quote the full sentence from MOS:FLAGCRUFT: —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, I have every respect for you (and indeed Sandstein and WaltCip) but - and I apologise - this is possibly the most daft reason for opposing I've ever seen. It's a sporting event.  Do the flags need to be there?  Not really.  Do the flags actually disqualify the article from being posted.  No. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my opposition is specifically regarding the table in the section . That's pretty much WP:OR to push a POV, boasting nationalism on a per round basis, that is not presented as such in any other reliable sources. Delete the table, and I think I can give a pass, for ITN purposes, on the other issues.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Bagumba. This is relatively easy to resolve; the change being requested does not detract from the quality of the article while bringing it into compliance with MOS and WP:NPOV. The rest of the article is in good shape. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose . In it's current state. The item is broken. We've long since gone past the times when a psuedo ranking list based on player performances by country has been deemed encyclopaedic, and the WP:FLAGCRUFT issues.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No longer oppose after fixing the issues with overdraw of templates. I've done quite a bit of work to make it usable, but there's still a lot of cruft in the article that I'd rather wasn't there before I could support.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've removed the biggest issue, which was the National representation table orange-tagged for neutrality. The rest of the flagcruft issues should be handled article-side, as it is generally out-of-scope for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tom Karen

 * Oppose Article is woefully underdeveloped. The career section lists basically a few random events from his life (some of which are entirely unreferenced!), many of the things in the lead are not visited in any sufficient detail (or even at all) in the body.  This is not main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Cunningham

 * Support Apologies for reverting some IPs who updated the article but failed to supply a source. I was following discussion on Twitter, but it was unconfirmed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Just saw this on CNN, so yes, it's confirmed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article in fine shape. Skynxnex (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Speaker Election (US)
Joesom333 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Wait until an outcome is achieved or the first day of this session has concluded before crafting a blurb. It is clear some type of unprecedented situation has taken place on this day, January 3, 2023, but we should wait to understand what it might be before deliberating on wording and notability. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Serious question - Would we post something like this in any other country? I guess the question is whether or not the Speaker of the House is an important enough role where we'd be able to find some type of equivalent in other parliamentary or democratic nations. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  21:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn’t. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the gears of government for a country were halted for an extended period of time, then yes I do believe it would be ITN worthy, even if it was not the U.S. We're not there at this point, but it is a possibility. The U.S. Congress cannot proceed with any business until a Speaker is selected. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most simplistically, the Speaker's job is to choose when and how to present legislation on the floor. Very powerful politically, but not quite a Head of Government in the same way a prime minister is. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "must pertain to the head of government" standard for ITN that I know of. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changes to the head of government are WP:ITN/R, which is what I thought WaltClip was referring to. Obviously it can be ITN-worthy without meeting the ITN/R provision. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Something happening for the first time in a hundred years is not automatically ITN-worthy. What happens with the HoR leadership is strictly local, with no international impact or interest and is by far not the most relevant political news so far this year. Again: this is not a news journal. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "No international impact"? The U.S. Congress is responsible for the nation's budgeting, spending, and declaration of war. So yes, it would have an international impact in areas such as military aid and international security. No one needs to show love to the U.S. but one shouldn't overcompensate with a bias against it either. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The same is done by the rest of the parliaments that exist in the world. So what? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The US is more important for international security and military aid than most other countries. Also, the fact that this only relates to a single country is not a valid reason to oppose it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean that every little thing that happens in the United States has to be magnified and focused on in every possible way. Leaving aside the too–much–known American patriotism is a good way to avoid WP:BIAS. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "little thing" though. This hasn't happened in 100 years. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and...? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a routine matter and it is indeed In The News everywhere. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "everywhere" because anything that happens in the USA has to be in the news (even a fly landing on the head of a vice president seeking re-election), no matter how irrelevant or globally insignificant it may be. The world is more concerned about sending delegations to Benedict XVI's funeral than about seeing what casino is going on inside the Capitol. And not everything that is not routine becomes ITNR-worthy. Nor is it the goal of ITN and it isn't technically feasible. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that everything that happens in the US has to be on ITN, but we are saying that just because it happened in the US doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted ITN. I felt that the excessive posts about Queen Elizabeth's death and state funeral, as well as the blurb about Truss' decision to resign followed by a second blurb for Sunak's election was excessive as an American, but I recognized that it was indeed ITN and deserved posting... as this does. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a good comparison. The examples you explain refer to a HoS and head of the Anglican Church, and a PM. In the case at hand, we are not even talking about executive power (although you say it may seem so). Biden's hypothetical death would have to be included in ITNR, in the same way as the appointment of his successor, and I personally wouldn't mind if it involved two or more blurbs. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would support if it broke that record of 133 ballots over two months, or went into an ongoing stalemate like Belgium 2010-11, where they took 541 days to negotiate a government. Blythwood (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until it materially affects partisan government control. We posted the election result already. At the moment, this is just intra-party fractiousness; nobody is going to be materially affected as long as a Republican keeps the speakership. If that changes, we could consider posting. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, we posted the result, and then it was pulled... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia... good for did you know. Speaker isn't a role that's important enough for ITN anyways. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Point of information - no business can be conducted in the U.S. Congress without a Speaker in place. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If business is actually substantially impacted by this, then that would be ITN worthy. The election itself is not. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker is also the third in line for the Presidency. Joesom333 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Important to few outside the US since it isn't the head of state or head of government. We don't blurb anything other than general elections, changes of heads of government and state. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is news to me. Can you cite the rule where this is the case? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no rule as wikipedia doesnt have rules. This is just my observation of standard practice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose As stated above, this is simply trivia at the moment.. Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is the first time this has happened in 100 years. But if we aren't going to post this as a blurb, could we consider posting it in ongoing? At least if it lasts longer than a day. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea given this may be a prolonged situation. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The House has adjourned until noon EST tomorrow without electing a Speaker. Joesom333 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll support this going in Ongoing, but maybe we should wait until tomorrow to do so. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. At the moment this is little more than interesting trivia, but it has the potential to become something a lot more significant. ITN doesn't require international significance or involvement of the head of state, so those points are irrelevant, but it does require some actual impact on something significant. A day or two of intra-party political squabbling is nothing (waves from the UK) but the longer it goes on the more significant it gets. If the minority party's candidate were elected that too I think would be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This is not the first time Mccarthy has failed, it seems. Back in 1923, 11 ballots were required so we should wait on an outcome and then see where we are. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Speaker is neither head of state nor head of government. We don't post the Leader of the House of Lords, and I don't think we should post this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker is the closest thing to a Prime Minister we have, though. Anyway, I doubt anyone is saying this should be posted as a routine matter. This is only notable because McCarthy has failed to get the votes he requires to become speaker, the first time this has happened in 100 years. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The PM is the head of government in the UK while the speaker is not. The POTUS is the head of government in the United States. The Speaker is much weaker than the PM. The Speaker does not run the government in the US. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that. The Head of Government and Head of State are one in the same in the US system. Still, the Speaker does have tremendous power to block legislation within the House. That's what I mean by the Speaker being the closest thing the US has to a prime minister. If a Speaker is not chosen, then no legislation can ever be passed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The US has a complex system of checks and balances so that one person does not have complete power. Switzerland is similar and we recently posted the result of a partial change: Swiss Federal Council. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is all very amusing, but the Republican Party's efforts at throwing toys out of their pram at each other does not rise to the level of an ITN blurb. Would we post a similar internecine spat from any other country? You know we wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The recent partial change of the Swiss Federal Council was posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Swiss Federal Council=executive power. Speaker=legislative branch. Very substantial differences. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In practical terms though, are there? Congress is blocked from doing any business until the Speaker is chosen. But I think Andrew's point is that we post partial changes to the Executive all the time, why not post about the Legislature in unusual circumstances? If this happened in the UK, we would post it (because of the fusion of powers making the Prime Minister part of the Executive), we shouldn't not post it just because the US has a different setup. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As Black Kite says below, it's something that in a very short time will be resolved, when some decide to stop crying and others decide to give in. If it's prolonged in time and the blockade to the legislative activity has irrevocable national and even international impacts, perhaps it would be time to rethink it. But this will not happen. And as for the debate you propose, I have no problem in discussing it. But we would be opening Pandora's box, and I don't think it would be appropriate. For example, would enter the blockage that has been in Spain to the renewal of the positions of institutions such as the Constitutional Court or the General Council of the Judiciary since 2018? I don't think so. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support but wait – The FAQ at Talk:United States reads:
 * Q5. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
 * The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
 * Because of this, I believe that the House speaker would qualify as a "head of state" as listed at WP:ITNR, but obviously we should at least wait until the winner has actually been decided. DecafPotato (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no way a similar event un any other country would even be nominated. A ridiculous nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if you don't know what the Speaker of the House does... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the speaker of the house does in my country? HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker in Australia doesn't do as much as the Speaker in the US. Which might explain the argument here. The Speaker in the US has the power to block legislation. Beyond that, if the House fails to appoint a Speaker, it won't be able to do anything else, and the Speaker is not impartial like in your country. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the "impartiality" of the speaker in Australia. This isn't the place to discuss it. My point is simply that this is a flawed area of argument. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite being non-American, I do know what the Speaker's role is, and this is still not ITN-worthy (unless a Democrat was appointed, which isn't going to happen). When they've stopped acting like children a Republican Speaker will be appointed.  It's just taking ... a little longer than usual. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Does not rise to ITN level. If this were perhaps a dispute over a president's inauguration, for example, then that would be appropriate, but not with a position like Speaker. Kafoxe (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and per SNOW. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Damar Hamlin

 * Comment on nominators comment - He has not died yet, please do not assume the subject has died yet. —<em style="font-family:Burbank;color:darkblue">Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  04:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not exactly breathing... https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/news/bills-safety-damar-hamlin-suffers-scary-injury-during-monday-night-football. I don't know where you think life ends, but this is pretty close. Maine   🦞  04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A single tweet from one reporter is not WP:V, which is why it's not in the article. Please don't keep spreading this as fact. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why does the blurb say "cardiac arrest?" It's not in any of the news sources given, and is not in the current article. Poor nomination. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Poor comment. Why don't you come up with something better, then, rather than just bashing it? Maine   🦞  05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was actually being kind because there are multiple issues with the nomination. Not only was it an incorrect blurb but it was premature speculation about the death of the individual, which is very much a WP:BLP issue. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose Please don't be so callous as to assume he will die. We do not consider nominations prior to the event happening. If he were to pass away, then it would be considered for RD; though hopefully, we won't have an RD nom for him for another 50 years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb needs to be changed to remove the reference to cardiac arrest, which isn't mentioned in sources about Hamlin. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would "Damar Hamlin, a safety for the Buffalo Bills, stops breathing following a hit received in the first quarter of an NFL football game against the Cincinnati Bengals" work better? There are plenty of news sources saying this, like this. Maine   🦞  05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter, as the blurb won't get posted anyways. By the very nature of sports, injuries happen. Bad injuries. This is a Clint Malarchuk-level injury. However, these are not quite what we cover here. Curbon7 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article's talk page says that it was on the top 25 report 2 times, so it looks like there is broad interest from the people who read Wikipedia (nerds like us who write it aside) in this sort of stuff. Should be on Wikipedia's main page. Maine   🦞  05:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what you are referring to with the comment "top 25 report 2 times." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 06:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in a big box on the top of the talk page for the article on Christian Eriksen.  Maine   🦞  06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How would one conclude from your comment that it was referring to Christian Eriksen? You have a peculiar set of practices. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 06:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight disagree in that Malarchuk's game continued on later that night while this game is currently postponed indefinitely, but I do agree that this blurb should not posted at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah the NHL at its finest. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would Support that. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CNN is now saying that Hamlin went into cardiac arrest. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The closest parallel I can think of is Christian Eriksen; did we post that to ITN? If so, then this might have a case for posting, but otherwise the only way I see this getting on ITN is if his injury proves fatal, and even then it would most likely be as RD and not a blurb. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was posted and closed as "No consensus." --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * He hasnt even been reported to be dead, and its a BLP violation to be spreading a rumour like that. Dont think the collapse by itself is blurbable, and in the absence of any other information dont think this merits more discussion here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Y'all are so weird. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's not dead and the nature of his injury is unclear. The article is likely to go undergo rapid changes over the next 12-24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless you're from the US this isn't major news. Many athletes sadly get seriously injured all the time, and just like we do not support retirements for ITN we should not report injuries either, however serious; more so for a sport only professionally played in 1 country. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. This discussion goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rajouri attacks

 * Oppose Article has numerous issues and the attack’s scale doesn’t quite meet the standards of ITN/R. The Kip (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , What issues do you see in the article? I would be glad to fix this.  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 04:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – Article looks good. I see this in international news outlets like BBC as well. Clearly an escalation with a clear death count. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the sources above and the page title of "2023 Rajouri Terror attacks", it's not clear why the blurb is focused on the protests and not the attacks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment. Actually, there are increasing protests across the region due to this terror attack, and today, on January 3, there were a number of calls for a shutdown or strike by various organisations across the region, in which many protests were called for today. That's why I focused on protests. But I was new to ITN, and if there can be any suggestions to improve it, I would love to do that. ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Based on the sources cited, I just didn't see the protests being a major story yet to not have the blurb say how many were killed and by who (or even why, if known). —Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Inclined to oppose I've my doubts that terrorist attacks committed in a particularly volatile area like Kashmir are notorious if they only result in six deaths. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear, The geography of Kashmir is a bit different; the Rajouri district is in the Jammu region, and there were no major attacks like this in past decades in this place, which makes this attack notable and significant. There are allegations of security lapses that gave rise to protests across the Jammu region and parts of the Kashmir valley. However, the whole region is generally known as "Kashmir," but inside Kashmir there are many subregions that may or may not be affected by the Kashmir conflict. ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. Let's see what other editors think and if they can help convince me more. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb may need some tweaking, but the article is in good shape and definitely main page ready, and this is a story that is being appropriately covered by the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this results in an escalation of the India–Pakistan conflict over the following days. An act of violence on its own is not significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is big news and we should have big news on our front page. Just because this is not of interest to the West does not mean that it is not significant. Maine   🦞  04:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Just because this is not of interest to the West does not mean that it is not significant"
 * That's not the issue here; not to truly invoke WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but the issue is that disasters/attacks with this few deaths usually don't make ITNR, period. There's been plenty of mass shootings in the US and/or Europe that we haven't blurbed, due to low death tolls indicating a lack of overall significance. The Kip (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are confusing terms. ITN/R does not apply to disasters or incidents like this. It applies only to recurring items. Moreover, it's also not true that a low death toll alone will be the deciding factor in whether something like this gets posted. I can cite numerous examples of disasters with low or no death tolls that have still been posted due to extenuating circumstances. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siddeshwar Swami

 * Support no issues. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, looks fine &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Downes (composer)

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 3179 characters (527 words) "readable prose size", referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Marilyn Stafford

 * Comment: Could use some copyediting.  Spencer T• C 17:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Horres

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kelly Monteith

 * Oppose Filmography is entirely without sources, and career section is far too incomplete for posting. Needs some serious expansion and referencing to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Block

 * Support, RIP. Fixed the CN tags. Seems like all is good to go. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 03:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not at all ready. I added a bunch more cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Added a few citations, not many CN tags left. Should be enough for RD. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Aside from the aforementioned Cns, some tables at Ken Block are also unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OP fixed them. Good to go now. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Few outstanding issues. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per improvements - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Gold Coast helicopter crash

 * Oppose With only four fatalities I doubt it's ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Tragic and noteworthy, but not front-page material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. A tragic event to be sure, but as transportation accidents go, this one does not warrant attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. The Kip (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This nomination had great intentions, but it is not worthy enough to be an ITN item.  TomMasterReal  TALK 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Death does not establish notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Art McNally

 * Comment Cited and expanded a bit.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations are needed for a couple of bullet-points in the "Awards and honors" section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems everything is referenced now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BeanieFan11, for the extra footnotes. Upon further review, I find this wikibio in need of some rewriting, or some materials need to be re-arranged. The lead section is supposed to be a summary or highlights, and yet it has details not mentioned in the main prose. That one year in the NBA is trivia and looks out of place in the intro. NYT and WaPo call McNally the "father of instant replay", and yet this was just mentioned as a bullet-point in Awards section, not to mention that this is not an award. The Career section probably should be beefed up a bit to explain why McNally is a Hall of Famer. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a bit context on those lists of awards. The NYT mentions rule changes he implemented and video replay..—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Davis (mathematician)

 * Comment Quite short and not very holistic. CN tag. Curbon7 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent work! Issues fixed, this appears to be ready. Curbon7 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have taken a pass at expanding the article and have also fixed the CN tags. Meets minimum expectations for homepage. Please have a look when you have a moment. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can an admin have a look at this one? It goes off the main page in ~60 minutes. Ktin (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gangsta Boo

 * Support. Looks to be well-sourced by now. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced discography.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Philippine airspace closure

 * Weak support – Impressive work on the article here. Based on quality alone, I would want to see this featured in ITN. However, I recognize that the impact and "encycopedic value" is lower than what we tend to admit here; the aftermath section doesn't suggest any long-term implications for this incident. No one died, tens of thousands of people just had a bad time this New Year's, and will hopefully move on. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough despite the good article. Does not leave a lasting impact since the problems have seemingly been fixed. I just had a flight cancelled last week as part of Southwest's >15,000 cancellations (compare to 361 here). The uproar it would elicit from some users if that article were nominated is funny to think about. Point being, mass flight delays and cancellations are unfortunately increasingly common. Belugsump (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Belugsump. Unnotable. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Interesting, but routine. Belugsump's comparison with Southwest is relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Had this incident occurred on a different week I would vote "weak support". Article looks impressive, but I doubt that this is just as notable as the other current ITN items (Croatia joining the eurozone, Benedict XVI and Pelé dying, and the December 2022 winter storm). The airspace closure was notable and did have massive impact; it is also true that it became a huge news in the region as I think this was the first time it happened there. However, the closest precedent would be the Southwest Airlines flight delays (as brought up by Belugsump), which was not blurbed at all. Vida0007 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary, delayed flights aren't worthy enough to be an ITN item.  TomMasterReal  TALK 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposethis is not for ITN. How many flights are canceled for strikes? We also don't post those.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's affected a population equal to a mid-sized town, not many events do that. We posted the Iceland volcano for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

 * Support, great importance for the geopolitics of the americas and the planet earth itself - Otávio Astor Vaz Costa (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We posted the results of the election. Why do we have to post the winner being inaugurated? If we hadn't posted the results of the election, then we could do what we did for the results of Nepal's elections, but we have already posted it, so it would be unnecessary. -  TomMasterReal  TALK 03:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember wikipedia posting about world leaders getting inaugurated when they got into power (US, UK, China, even Brazil with Temer and Bolsonaro).
 * We are talking about a historical president, in a historical election, in one of the biggest and most influential countries geopolically in the world. 179.83.196.117 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support He's back! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose already posted, and there was no particular drama/disruption of any consequence before the handover Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose His election win was already posted in October.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: R. K. Krishna Kumar

 * Support Short but well referenced article Josey Wales Parley 10:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anita Pointer

 * There's a lot of CN tags and lead issues. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "lead issues"? And there are no CN tags. 86.187.166.107 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing and lead issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Everything seems to be sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank McGarvey

 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking for REFs on how much he got paid as a professional footballer and what he did after retiring from football. --PFHLai (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited and supplied refs where you requested Josey Wales Parley 19:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, Josey Wales. I'm not sure the Scotsman obit is strong enough for "later" in that sentence, but it's a minor issue. --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Croatia joins Eurozone and Schengen Area

 * Support Notable and articles are up to date with Croatia properly listed. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, pretty notable and the EU is one of the few international associations where joining it makes a pretty big difference to a country. AryKun (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * technically they've already been in the EU for a while, they're just "much more in it" than before. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A currency change in any country is probably notable in itself, as is joining the Schengen area, which a huge impact on the whole EU and a large swathe of its population. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just some Balkan bureaucracy comparable with the fuss about number plates in Kosovo.  One of the key points about such developments in the EU is that it is preceded by a period of alignment and stability so that the change is not disruptive.  So, when the change happens it's not actually very significant.  There's much bigger currency news elsewhere such as the collapse of crypto-currencies or the hyperinflation in other places. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The freedom of movement involving so many countries is a huge change for those going to and from Croatia and all those holding passports. Same with adopting a multinational currency, significant economic impact, whether done gradually or not. Also the "fuss about number plates in Kosovo" had both armies on standby so it's somewhat dismissive to say it's nothing on a sensitive point for all those in the region. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Kosovo issue has its own article but still wasn't posted. This EU tweak doesn't have a separate article and isn't getting much news coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant change for the country itself both in international standing and practical effects for the citizens living day to day with the new currency. Notable imapct on the wider Eurozone and Schengen area, who are 400+ million people, most of whom are English speakers of various levels of competence and thus enwiki audience. The relevant articles are updated and highly detailed.  Mel ma nn   11:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Question - Do we have any precedent on this kind of issue? The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * New countries adopting the Euro have been posted in the past, see Latvia (2013), Estonia (2010), Slovakia (2009). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll !vote support. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support although it'd be more ideal to link an article like Croatia and the euro than the article Eurozone. I also fixed the grammar of the original blurb. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Eurozone article has little about this and has plenty of quality issues – lots of cn and paragraphs without citations. There's a table about debt in which Croatia is a complete blank.  And so on. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The proposed blurb sounds like it came out of the blue. Perhaps preceding legal framework/background should be mentioned. Brandmeistertalk  14:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, although linking to Croatia and the euro rather than Eurozone. CMD (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb1 though Croatia and the euro should probably be the bolded link? Sam Walton (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It's safe to say that a country joining the Eurozone in full for the first time would probably be considered an automatically significant item. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Change of currency and a significant step for Croatia in european integration This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant development for the country, added image suggestion of newly minted euro coin.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   19:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Notable event, Alex-h (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting, though I'll modify the blurb. The Schengen article is not in the condition to be bolded. --Tone 21:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited the overlong blurb for conciseness.  Sandstein   19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment I dont think the word also is needed here, perhaps "Croatia adopts the Euro and joins the Schengen area" would work. -125.59.140.165 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP--we should drop the word "also". DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been fixed. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)