Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2024

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

(Posted) RD: Terry Beasley
Kafoxe (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficent breadth and sourcing. Marking ready.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted on a Sunday afternoon. R.I.P. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Change of head of state of Malaysia
Change of head of state of Malaysia. Seems to be a ceremonial role, so unclear notability. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability this is a change in the head of state. Monarchs in 21st-century Europe are arguably a ceremonial role, so if we post them, we should post this on the basis of notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:ITNELECTIONS, any change of the head of state is notable enough for ITN. From the List of current heads of state and government article, we can see that this change constitutes a change in the head of state of Malaysia. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's any change in the holder of the office which administer the executive, which in Malaysia is the Prime Minister according to that list. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per article, he was elected on 27 October 2023 and, if I understand correctly, the swearing-in ceremony is a formality, similar to presidential inaugurations. Brandmeistertalk  21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, the election is a formality too, it's nine monarchs rotating among themselves every 5 years in a predefined order. The next one will very likely be Nazrin Shah of Perak in five years, as Perak comes after Johor in the cycle. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Due to this reason. Routine event that doesn't have as much significance as a traditional change in head of state PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support He's in the news and seems likely to make a difference. See Malaysia prepares for ‘hands-on’ king... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional support, provisional oppose on quality; several unsourced statements throughout his article, but similar to European monarchies, it is indeed an alteration of the head of state. — Knightof  theswords  23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was elected as king in October & this was a swearing in ceremony that happened. Additionally, I don’t think a change in a ceremonial role is notable unless something that’s out of the ordinary happens (such as the 1st abdication of a Danish monarch since 1146). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support on precedence, and the unique nature of a semi-elective monarchy; however, I do question why we didn’t post this in October. The   Kip  02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Though he may not really be the head of state, ceremonial/monarchial role changes are often posted on ITN as well, so I don't see this as much of a hinderance for posting. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support not ITN/R as discussed above, nonetheless notable and comparable to death of a monarch which we do post This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Head of State change, and the Malaysian monarchy is unique, even if this would've been better posted in October.
 * River10000 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Happens every 5 years. The role is purely nominal. They are not elected either (rotate on a list) so im voting to oppose Kasperquickly (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, it's 9 monarchs "voting" to rotate the crown in a fixed order (as I stated above), but that's what makes the Malaysian monarchy unique and it would be interesting to highlight this little-known cultural specificity to the readers. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support  A head of state change is notable enough for ITN though this would've been better posting when he was elected king Setarip (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * this whole thread seems like a bunch of paid editors bought by the office of this guy, who is, and this is true, a kleptocrat Kasperquickly (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't cast aspersions on people you disagree with. Wanting to highlight a cool fact from across the world doesn't mean anyone here is paid by the guy. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we do not post heads of state that are not also heads of government. We shouldn't have done it for inconsequential transitions like the King of Denmark, we shouldn't do it now. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean by "we do not post head of states that are not also heads of government" when we did post both King Charles' accession and coronation. Being a head of state without any executive power doesn't warrant as a reason of not posting something. Tofusaurus (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like we don’t should be read as we shouldn’t.  nableezy  - 04:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominal support: Sets a precedence as we did not post when the 16th king was installed. Unsure about notability, but transitions of monarchs usually should be posted nevertheless. Tofusaurus (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Change of head of state is generally newsworthy in the relevant sense for ITN. I still don't know why we don't fully translate the Malay king's title, but that's an aside. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've posted without the image; I'm extremely skeptical it's a case of own work, and I've tagged the image on Commons as lacking evidence of permission. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we swap the current image with something like Ibrahim Ismail of Johor Rajasekharan 2019.jpg? He looks like he's going for a round of golf on the main page.  Bremps  ...  01:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Obelisk (life form)

 * Support, as nominator. Perhaps too short at present, but most definitely noteworthy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now expanded, with a merge from Obelisk (virology) (created later), so crediting User:Paragem. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "The work was posted on the bioRxiv preprint server on 21 January, and has yet to be peer reviewed." Fram (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram, we should probably wait for a peer-reviewed printing. This gives us time to improve the article too. The article is currently too short. This is definitely something I hope we can feature on ITN at some point, however! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile news outlets from Nature to the popular press, and all around the world, are reporting this news. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP has higher standards to make sure scientific and medical content has been validated, not just claimed. — M asem (t) 14:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dont think this level of sourcing is enough to claim anything was actually discovered. Only that a preprint says it was.  nableezy  - 14:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about altblurb2? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But I dont think a putative new form of life being announced is something we should feature here. Id happily support it when it is peer-reviewed.  nableezy  - 15:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nature is known for its lax standards. Also, what "medical content"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Nature article is simply reporting details from the preprint but acknowledges this is a preprint so that puts an implicit caution these may not be as described. And given its related to the human body, that falls under medical content. — M asem (t) 17:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Very very interesting, definitely significant enough if true, but maybe premature - not yet per-reviewed, and the article may be a little short but that could recieve lenience because of how recent it is JM (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, as per User:Maplestrip. For a moment there I thought it was that thing in Space Odyssey Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait As per above, wait for a peer review of the findings. After this, if the findings are true, support as a new form of life seems significant enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Fram.  nableezy  - 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (edit: Wait), although it would be better to mention that these subviral agents are non-cellular life, which is often considered at the boundary between life and non-life. News outlets are reporting it now, and I'm afraid waiting for a peer-reviewed confirmation would make it stale. As an encyclopedia, it's better to follow what's "the news" in the relevant journals (i.e. peer review) rather than rushing to follow newspaper articles. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much more respectable for us to post a month later when the peer reviews come in, rather than now, even if the more usual news sources are reporting on it now. We are not a news website, we are an encyclopedia with an eye on current events. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely understand your point of view, and I would prefer it to be reported once peer-reviewed, but I am afraid it would be considered stale and not be published at all in that case. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 14:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been a problem before, yes, and I am worried too. I think ITN has a systemic problem that makes us "incapable" of featuring most science news if we wait for peer-reviews, and we might need a broader discussion on this... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disregard the people saying stale when the peer review happens and problem solved.  nableezy  - 15:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to formalize something like that in the ITN guidelines. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have my support! Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is that a nomination is stale, the posting admin can't just ignore that consensus. JM (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fram. Without proper validation, would there even be a Wikipedia? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning oppose per others. If the peer review of this is a newsworthy enough item (on the same level of coverage as this, or greater) and/or can be completed before this story becomes staler than the oldest item on the ITN page, then I think we post it at that time. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis of short article. I also wonder about the notability in case this is one of many life forms that are regularly discovered. The article does not mention how rare this sort of discovery is.
 * CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a whole new category of non-cellular life. There's like a handful of them in total (virus, viroid, satellite, prion, plasmid, obelisk, defective interfering particle and viriform), all stranding the line between life and non-life. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we wait too long, it might get so stale that it dies.... and then we can argue under WP:ITNRD if was really living or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait per Fram. Leaning oppose on quality of article. Needs major expansion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs work The "new form of life" hook seems over-hyped. The Nature article says that "obelisks have the same shape as many viroids" and viroids were discovered in the 1970s.  So, these things seem to be a new strain rather than something completely new.  The claim seems to rest on some novelty in the sequencing but my impression is that down at that level, you get a wild variety of mutation and permutations and so it's just a matter of looking.  So, to be significant, I reckon we need more on the implications for their role in human physiology and the gut biome.
 * On the other hand, waiting on formal peer review is silly because that's just a sanity check by a particular reviewer which proves little and that might take ages. We may already have some similar opinions in the sources such as "The study is “a milestone” because it presents the best available evidence that such elements are widespread in the bacterial world, and not just in more complex organisms, says molecular biologist Joan Marquez-Molins at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, who was not involved in the work. “It’s not really something sporadic or isolated in the population — it’s really affecting a considerable amount of the sample,” he says."


 * But Joan Marquez-Molins just seems to be a new post-doc. Is there a wider consensus out there?
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Obelisks aren't just a new strain of viroids, and that's where the novelty is. They're structurally more complex, with RNA folding in a different shape including the namesake rod-like structures (in comparison, viroids are a single naked strand of circular RNA). Indeed, researchers never call them "viroid" but only "viroid-like". Also, while mutations do change the genome, they can still be established to be genetically related (even humans and bacteria!), while obelisks are genetically completely unrelated to any lifeform known previously. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the paper, it appears that the study looked for patterns in sequencing databases. The finding seems to have the same circular RNA as viroids.  The protein encoding and rod-like structure seems to be a prediction based upon a folding model rather than the result of a direct observation.  So, this structural prediction seems to need some confirmation.  The overall approach is interesting in that it seems mostly software-based rather than doing the dirty work of collecting stool samples.  I'm wary of this approach because, if you look for patterns in a large mass of data, then you will find them but you have to consider artifacts and alternative explanations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose (or, more precisely, Wait). We can wait for the peer-review, Wikipedia is not a news ticker.  If people complain that the story is stale at that point, we can just point them back here. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose although this is interesting, it needs to be verified by peer review first, and quality of the article will need to be improved. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This study has not been peer-reviewed so has a high chance of being wrong, or that it's over-sold. If/when a peer-reviewed paper describing the results is published in a serious scientific journal (which will be months at least) then we can reconsider. News stories are not enough. Modest Genius talk 19:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We shouldn't report on new scientific discoveries from press releases and pre-prints. Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Question Did ITN post about the Borg, either preprint or peer-reviewed? 128.91.40.237 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I'd argue the cases are different: the Borg discovery paper stated that they could neither prove that they are archaeal viruses or plasmids or minichromosomes, nor prove that they are not, but that they may ultimately be classified as megaplasmids, while obelisks are pretty clearly distinct from other subviral agents, even viroids. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Worse, it looks like no one wrote an article on this subject at all. Shame to see us lacking in this field... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See Borg (microbiology). Andrew🐉(talk) 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until this is peer-reviewed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for peer review. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per above, if confirmed, support. Great if it pans out, but LK-99 didn't.  Bremps  ...  00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per all above. The   Kip  02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I had closed this discussion because there was strong consensus to wait until a complete peer-review of the discovery before it was re-opened. From my personal experience as an author and a referee, a peer-review in a reputable journal usually takes from several months up to several years, which means that the probability that the wait votes will be satisfied before the nomination gets stale or archived in about a week is almost 0. I have never closed a nomination twice, so I'll urge this to be closed and nominated again when the peer-review is complete and the paper gets published.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a new form of life here and that's potentially such a major discovery that it merits at least 24 hours of discussion and it hasn't had that yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except there's clear SNOW here to wait for a peer review at minimum. Which anyone in the sciences knows doesn't happen in just a few days. M asem (t) 13:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't seriously talk about anything until it's peer-reviewed. No matter how sensationally it sounds, this may be outright rejected as incorrect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Peer review is not confirmation and a large proportion of peer-reviewed papers are found to be incorrect -- see the replication crisis &c. That's why WP:MEDRS has a much higher threshold.  But we can make the tentative status of such claims clear in our blurbs and so it's better to say something than nothing at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this passed peer review, we would still likely make sure the wording on the claim is tentative, as it would require a broad consemsus in the scientific community to assure this is a new form of life. Absolutely should wait to have that peer review to pass the basic level of fact checking. — M asem (t) 14:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neat discovery, but should be closed per Kiril Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is one of those noms that has an overblown proposed blurb that completely misrepresents the underlying event. The blurb asserts its importance with the claim "A new form of life".  None of the sources I consulted state this, and no, it cannot be taken as read.  There is no scientific consensus as to whether even viruses are alive: these new structures share the same problematic nature and yet are are even more primitive.  The proposal here is that we can skip peer review and scientific consensus building and call it off our own bat.  That isn't encyclopedic: far from being promoted on the front page this is skirting with the margins of being PROD-worthy. 3142 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why the altblurb says non-cellular life, which is to life what dwarf planets are to planets. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose just because the media hyped it as a new discovery despite a lack of scientific rigour in doing so, we shouldn't do the same. No evidence this "discovery" is actually factually correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose So few details known that the article is not up to the required standard. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Recommend close This discussion was closed due to overwhelming oppose/wait votes, reopened against consensus, and has since garnered a further four opposes. WP:SNOW should apply by now. The   Kip  19:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Saravan killings
Ainty Painty (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because the article is to denote a major moment in a possible conflict issue during a period where turbulent Middle Eastern events are front page across the globe. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as this is significant in the context of the strained Iran-Pakistan relations . 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as long as the gunman aren't identified, any significance in regard to Iran-Pakistan relations is only speculation. Also, the article is a little short for the main page I think ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The significant isn't based on whether they are working for the Iranians, but on the wider tensions between Pakistanis and Iranians. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but without knowing who or why this shooting took place, there is no way to verifiably link this to the conflict. Saying this event may have an impact on a possible conflict issue would be a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be posted even if there wasn't a link to the Middle East crisis. I just think it is noteworthy that the attack would be perceived (and has been perceived by some media outlets) to be linked to the Middle East crisis. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per mike. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because without knowing who did it or why, the death toll isn't high enough to post this. It was probably done by Baloch separatist insurgents as part of the Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency. The attackers may not have known the victims were Pakistanis. 2A00:23C4:B18A:2E01:DD24:747B:26FE:2AA4 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality I don’t think there are enough details in the “Incident” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mike. Need to be careful that we don’t perform any OR here. The   Kip  02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrorist attacks are by no means rare in this region, and the vast majority are not even put into the Current Events portal, let alone nominated for ITN. I don't think that this one is so exceptional as to meet or surpass the standards for significance. Given that there hasn't been a new blurb in a long time now, maybe standards for significance should be lowered, but I don't think that this meets even a lower standard. JM (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment that AlJazeera has said the attacks were by militants supporting provincial separation of a place I can't easily spell. It's notable that the attack was targeting Pakistanis in a country which it has has tensions. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/30/at-least-10-killed-in-overnight-attack-by-baloch-rebels-in-pakistan
 * CollationoftheWilling (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The insurgency in Balochistan is at the core of the current Iran-Pakistan tensions, given that both states have accused each other of harboring Baloch rebels, and used them as a justification for their respective strikes. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Carnahan
– Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - citations look good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fine, good for RD. Alright length + general overview of the article shows no outstanding issues. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -Article quality is ok. No issues.BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Melinda Ledbetter
Looks good. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 07:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough for RD ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chita Rivera
Article needs some work, especially citing her acting roles ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citations still needed, including filmography and awards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks to Bloom6132's work, all the acting credits and awards are cited. Every paragraph after the lede also has at least one citation, and there are no outstanding CN tags. Seems good to go. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Imran Khan jailed for 10 and 14 years
A one-sentence update, should perhaps be given its own section with aftermath/reactions, but I think the imprisonment of a recent PM (2018-2022) of a country with almost 250 million people is significant enough for ITN. JM (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Suport upon major updates - major effects from one of the largest ostensible democracies on Earth. — Knightof  theswords  16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added four more sentences and made it a separate paragraph. JM (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, notability is obvious. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support upon update per above. Notable PM of a regional power heading to prison is significant. The   Kip  17:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The Prime Minister of Pakistan section is orange tagged for NPOV. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on Notability Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. A sham trial, if it can be called one. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose When originally sentenced in August 2023, we couldnt post that due to the same POV tag that still persists on the article. M asem (t) 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as POV is fixed. While we probably should have posted at conviction, this is still a big enough story given the Khan's reign over Pakistan to still post. (Let's not pretend that should Trump be found guilty of any crime that has a prison sentence attached we'd post that too; same would apply to nearly any major/first-world power country.) --M asem (t) 05:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fix POV tag, then Support: The Prime Minister of Pakistan section has a POV tag, but after this is fixed, support due to obvious notability. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but the article needs improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the NPOV dispute has to be solved per above. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb needs changing, the "for leaking state secrets" is too definitive. The BBC source for example words it as "a case in which he was charged with leaking state secrets", we should be similarly circumspect. CMD (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it'd need to be. He was sentenced for a crime of leaking state secrets. Whether it was a legitimate charge or not is something the article should discuss not the blurb. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the blurb is in WP:Wikivoice, and should not imply the individual leaked state secrets if the source we use to support it does not. CMD (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. JM (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The blurb says he was sentenced for leaking state secrets, not that he leaked state secrets. That's factual, that's what he was sentenced for, and I don't see much difference between this and the BBC wording. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 11:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb due to another sentence being handed down of 14 years. I've left the blurb alone otherwise, as he was indeed sentenced for those crimes, whether he actually committed them or not. The second BBC article says he was jailed "for corruption" in the headline, without qualifying it elsewhere in the headline. Someone sentenced for murder is sentenced "for murder" regardless of whether or not they actually committed murder. JM (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the second BBC article was not included in the nomination when I made my comment. Nonetheless, I don't see why less careful wording is being used here than in the last head of state corruption posting regarding the Mauritanian President, for which the BBC article was even more direct. CMD (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just added the second BBC article for the second sentence for the altblurb. I stand by the wording, but you can add an Alt2 with your preferred wording. JM (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - I often tend to think that topics related to Pakistan are over-published on Wikipedia, but he seems to be a controversial leader of a country who has numerous and volatile geopolitical disputes.
 * Arind8 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment another editor has added the Lettergate article and bolded it in both blurbs, unfortunately it's also orange-tagged. JM (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There doesn't seem to be a material effect as Khan is already in prison. And these sentences seem these quite political in nature and are easily reversed in Pakistan's unstable polity – see Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan reverse roles.  The main context seems to be the forthcoming election and, per WP:SOAP, we shouldn't be pushing a particular POV ahead of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Andrew, could you please elaborate on that last part?  Bremps  ...  01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The "material effect" is that instead of 3 years in jail, it's now 14 years (or 24 if the sentences are consecutive). The supposed reversability of the sentences is WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't think it's soapboxing or POV to report his prison sentences (and given that you did not elaborate, I don't know why you think it is, either). JM (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Paroles and pardons make the duration of such political imprisonments quite uncertain and so the putative effect of this additional sentencing is WP:CRYSTAL too. I looked at the Lettergate article but it seems quite unclear and very political.  Overall, this seems like the legal hoo-hah around Trump and his time in office.  ITN dismisses that as internal politics and this seems much the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 14 years is 14 years, right now that's what stands, regardless of speculation about pardons and things. If Trump is sentenced to jailtime I have no doubt that it will be blurbed and only a small minority would dismiss it on the basis of it being internal politics, but it's not a big deal if I can't change your mind. JM (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are appeals in progress, I gather, but it's hard to tell the details from the meagre updates to the articles. For example, the Lettergate article which is bolded in the blurb doesn't seem to have any update about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record I didn't add or bold the lettergate article, someone changed the blurbs. JM (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Lettergate article is orange-tagged with multiple issues. I checked the equivalent Toshakhana reference case which ITN is headlining too.  The update for that is feeble and the source provided says nothing about that case.  The main article about Khan has pathetic updates too.  There's no quality control here and this is inexcusable when the matter is so controversial and political.  There are numerous red flags here: BLP, an ongoing election, irregular court proceedings, controversial topic sanctions and EPC protection and yet ITN is posting a tendentious headline without adequate context or quality.  Instead of checking the lamentable quality of these articles, we see editors engaging in irrelevant arguments about geography.  Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles were in the original blurb I proposed, so they have nothing to do with me. Lettergate was untagged and recently retagged, Toshakhana wasn't even in the blurb when it was posted as far as I'm aware. I don't see where you see BLP issues or anything tendentious, no POV is being taken: he was indeed convicted, corrupt court or not, and it's news, election or not. Context is found in the bolded article, there isn't enough room to give the background. No one else seems to have any issues and it's already up anyway. JM (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The bland presentation of the current blurb gives the impression that these new sentences were issued in a conventional and respectable legal way. But the coverage indicates that this is not the case. For example, see this analysis, "...it was made clear that the military would stop at nothing to sideline Khan and destroy his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.  Any pretence of due judicial process being followed was abandoned entirely at both cases where Khan was sentenced this week. Instead of an open courtroom, the trials were conducted inside the jail where Khan is being detained and his lawyers were not allowed to choose or cross-examine any witnesses."  Such coverage indicates that these are trumped-up proceedings intended mainly to influence the outcome of the election.  The blurb does not present the matter in a balanced way and so is lacking adequate NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the blurb I followed the BBC headlines I used for sources. If NPOV indeed means following sources, I don't think I could have done better than rephrasing the BBC headlines for the blurb, which is the equivalent of a headline. JM (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HEADLINES, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. ... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context...". Some context that's missing currently is the general election and the related suppression of the popular PTI party. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sentencing a former prime minister, who exercised power in his country, is significant no matter if he's already in prison.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because of the ongoing situation in the Middle East. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just FYI Pakistan is not in the Middle East and this situation is unrelated to Middle East or Iranian ongoing situations JM (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is variously described as being in the Middle East. Several maps including by respectable outlets such as ABC have put Pakistan in the Middle East. The "situation" in the Middle East refers to turmoil/conflict/controversy that surrounds the Middle East currently. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's like if a Canadian prime minister was jailed and someone said "Support because of the ongoing situation in North America". Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here.
 * Pakistan can be variously described as being in the Middle East, just how Turkey is described as being in the Middle East. In many perspectives of South Asian culture it's impossible to consider them South Asian, but I'll leave this topic considering it's non-negotiable that they are variously considered to be Middle Eastern, and I will concede that they are also variously considered to be South Asian.
 * https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-ten-middle-east-conflicts-are-converging-into-one-big-war
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/20/seemingly-disparate-middle-east-conflicts-show-collective-erosion-of-self-restraint
 * The second point is that what seems to be numerous unrelated conflicts are being perceived to merge into one big conflict. I am one of those perceivers. You're focusing on the Eagle Pass situation as a stand alone conflict, where I am also using the wider US election and asylum crisis in Canada - US border to consider the crisis to be "North American". (though the comparison is silly because the Middle East is very unique geopolitics and comparisons probably won't be found). CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any definition of South Asia that doesn't include Pakistan? I've never encountered one. But it doesn't matter for this nomination anyway. The point is that regardless of where Pakistan is located, the significance of Imran Khan being jailed does not come from "ongoing situations" involving Iran, Israel and Palestine, Yemen, or Syria. JM (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore there are citaions that can be used for the writing that Pakistan is part of the Middle East conflict:
 * "Violence has erupted across the Mideast, with Iran striking targets in Iraq, Pakistan and Syria, and the U.S. carrying out airstrikes targeting Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Some observers fear a new round of strikes targeting Iran could tip the region into a wider war."
 * https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-us-navy-mideast-tensions-israel-hamas-red-sea-6d5662d09aad8aed0875025b75928ef5 CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Middle East" is a confusing term anyways; some say it's just the Arabian Peninsula, others have it as far reaching as Morocco and India. Personally I use the 'Islamic World' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support POV tags gone, major news.  Bremps  ...  01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb per above and the other prison sentence should be mentioned too. Brandmeistertalk  09:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. If Donald Trump is convicted and jailed, that will absolutely be posted, and this is no different. (they each claim their cases are politically motivated, too). 331dot (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb the arrest of a recent head of state is major news
 * Setarip (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support arrest of a former head of state is ITN worthy, and the bolded article looks to be good enough to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted There's consensus to post and I have put the altblurb onto the main page.  Schwede 66  18:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment He and his wife have now been sentenced to 7 years in prison for illegal marriage (BBC). --84.252.98.97 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He has been charged with numerous offences since he was ousted from power and the number has continued to escalate so that it's now stated by recent sources as a remarkable 150. It seems apparent that an order has gone out to throw the book at him and so there's presumably a department of the military government now dedicated to dreaming up new charges.  Are we going to keep reporting these? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) ECOWAS
There's some uncertainty about the timing as ECOWAS requires time for an orderly withdrawal but those exiting say that it's immediate Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, major development in the context of a regional cold war (cf. Nigerien crisis (2023–present) and Alliance of Sahel States) Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Fairly notable, given the context of the withdrawal. There is an orange-tagged section in the article, though, so perhaps we should work on that first before posting. Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 10:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - suggest providing context for ITN readers about this; most will not be aware of the implication of this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good idea indeed! Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article updated, major international event with future consequences for Africa. JM (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (What an odd map.) JM (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Guinea hasn't officially withdrawn from ECOWAS, it was only suspended like the other states a few months back for supporting Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the assortment of European and Asian countries scattered in the north. JM (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah that too lol. Northern Europe has sunk into the ocean, RIP PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently the old versions were cropped around Africa, but someone in 2021 uploaded an uncropped version and here we are. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * CMD changed it back, looks much better now. It's strange how it ever looked like that, with the uncropped version having the full maps of the countries partially visible in the cropped version while missing entire countries that would then also be visible. I wonder if it has something to do with the way these maps are made, which is totally unknown to me. Anyway, the current version is much better. JM (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as per above, this is significant in the context of the 2023 Nigerien crisis and the Alliance of Sahel States. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - This really is not significant. These states had already de facto left ECOWAS a loong time ago. This is really just a formality, it has no real effect on anything. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The coups and resulting suspension of these members was notable and we blurbed it, this is irrelevant. I also doubt the ECOWAS members will accept this as they still only recognise the previous government as the legal representative of Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is bewildering that you consider this international event - one that actually affects the political status of several major African nations - insignificant compared to the Texas standoff. But then again, I suppose there always have been concerns about systemic bias on ITN/C. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Texas standoff is a serious constitutional crisis in the most powerful democracy in the world that has garnered major global attention. This is nothing more than an irrelevant change in status that had already de facto been enacted months before (and we also blurbed it already). How does this actually affect the political status of West Africa, apart from only confirming legally something that had already been true in the real-world for ages? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Their membership in the African Union, which is the most important supranational union in Africa, was suspended shortly following the coups. There's really no need to post their withdrawal from this regional union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the AU is virtually irrelevant in African politics and little more a regional forum, whetheras ECOWAS is an almost EU-like political union. Sort of like how the Council of Europe is to the European Union. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t get the same impression from this template. ECOWAS is part of AEC, which in turn is an organisation of the African Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In reality ECOWAS has nothing to do with the AU (the AEC is essentially a vague umbrella organisation to promote free trade rather than an organised economic institution). ECOWAS on the otherhand has a passport union, Schengen-like free movement, has organised multiple joint military operations, and continues to integrate further. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Chaotic Enby, albeit the article needs some work - large portions of the “Structure” and “Economic integration” sections appear to be missing refs. The   Kip  17:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds, do not see much in the way of consequences either.  nableezy  - 17:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support fairly notable, major international event. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like another noteworthy flashpoint in the Nigerian conflict. Might just go down as a footnote, but this is another instance of the Alliance of Sahel States distancing themselves from the rest of West Africa. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I think this is notable enough for ITN, but I agree with Rockstone that a bit more context in the burb would be helpful ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would've liked to mention the proposed ECOWAS military intervention as context, but connecting the two might be a bit close to OR. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support due to restarting the nigerien crisis Lukt64 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation needed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but the map definitely needs to be improved --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. If one country left the EU we would post that; three countries leaving ECOWAS should also warrant posting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, this is a major event. The opposition above relating to the AU is incorrect, the AU is built upon these regional pillars rather than the other way around. ECOWAS is as noted above an organization that actually does things, one of the more effective regional organizations on the continent (in the world?). That said, the blurb should be clear it is reporting on the announcement, rather than implying it has actually happened. Such things are often complicated by politics and time (see Pacific Islands Forum for an example), so we should be precise. Not commenting on quality, but I am going to fix that map. CMD (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but it has already de facto happened. These countries have had nothing to do with ECOWAS for months. This changes literally nothing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality This is notable enough for ITN, but the article’s quality needs a bit of improvement. A better map would also be nice. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think there is a regional notability in terms of Africa, the Middle East (the Arab world), and the link with France and the EU through linguistic, economic and political ties. It's not really a major topic in the Anglosphere however.
 * CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but oppose language of original blurb & alt1. In effect, what these countries did is announce their intention to withdraw, but they did not leave, despite claiming to be "withdrawing without delay." The equivalent would be if the UK announced in 2016 after the Brexit vote that they are "leaving the EU without delay" – it isn't exactly that simple, and ECOWAS gave a response clarifying that they are still members at this time. Provided an alt2. <b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ECOWAS had previously suspended the membership of these countries and can't have it both ways. Also, it doesn't recognise the governments of those countries and so has another bind unless it sponsors governments-in-exile or attempts to occupy the countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't accurate. Acknowledging the legal difference between suspended membership and non-membership is not the same as trying to have it both ways. To give another analogy, let's imagine that the EU suspended Hungary and Orbán proceeded to declare "We are withdrawing effective immediately." It just doesn't work like that. If the EU were to respond with a statement that acknowledges they continue to be a member, this wouldn't be them "trying to have it both ways." The original blurb is simply factually incorrect and contradicts what reliable sources say. From the BBC: "According to the [ECOWAS] treaty, member states wishing to withdraw must give written notice a year in advance, and continue to abide by its provisions during that year." <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of these semantics, I still haven't found any good argument as to what makes all of this legal jargon notable. What use does this story have? There's been absolutely no real-world effect of this, as these states have not been participating in the organisation for months. We have also blurbed the initial suspension of these members already. What's the point? How is a minor change in legal status that has no relevance to anything notable? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are significant ramifications, as explained by Reuters. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Notable excerpt from said article: But, if carried through, it is set to disrupt the region's trade and services flows, worth nearly $150 billion a year. ... It also raises questions over millions of nationals from the three poor and landlocked nations who settled in neighbouring states as the bloc allows visa-free travel and right to work. I see this as likely to spiral into a economic (and thus humanitarian) crisis with long-lasting ramifications. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. If this has major ramifications for trade and a famine ends up happening, then we post. As of yet, nothing has happened. If the story continues to develop into a crisis, we'll post that crisis. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We still don't post events that haven't happened yet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We posted when Russia recognized two states because it could lead to war. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Way different situation as there the change had massive real world consequences immediately PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing posting events that haven't happened yet. The argument is does this event alone (three nations leaving the ECOWAS) have major implications for the stability of the continent, and the answer from reliable sources is yes. This is different from trying to post an ITN item of some politician proposing a law to ban cookies, because the law isn't in effect yet. This event is far further along on the Friedrich Glasl's model of conflict escalation. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can understand the consequence this might have, but as I said, we have already posted the suspension of these members from ECOWAS, and little has changed to the stability of the region in the present. And also, just like the law proposing to ban cookies not being in effect yet, so too is this announcement of withdrawal not in effect yet.
 * Even by article quality standards, there are only two lines mentioning the announcement on the article. It's getting barely any media attention, most of the actual fallout from this decision happened months ago. It would be ridiculous to blurb this and not, say, the current rapidly escalating situation in Iran. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * someone want to evaluate this? Seems to have a solid consensus to post, and quality issues with the article have been addressed. The   Kip  20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posting ALT0, since the paragraph update in the article makes no mention of the Nigerian crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: R. Champakalakshmi
Indian historian. Article is a basic start-class biography Ktin (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Borderline in terms of depth but meets minimum standards and is fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 04:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * expanded further, please have a look. I believe it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Article looks to be fully-cited and isn't far from rolling off. The  Kip  01:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Griffin
Well sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Very good sourcing and of decent length. Should be good to go. (Plus, I like his name, but that's irrelevant.) - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him &#124; talk) 08:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding that name, I freaked out when I initially saw it on RD because I thought it was November 2013 all over again. 92.18.106.188 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks very nice. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: N. Scott Momaday
Death announced today. Thriley (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC) The first Native American to win Pulitzer Prize. --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Multiple CN tags, and most of the literary career and bibliography sections are unreferened. The   Kip  02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two {cn} tags remaining, but the Literary career section is still orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing, and the Bibliography section is a string of bullet-points that are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - all issues mentioned above have been cleaned up except for the two {cn} tags. Ready? Trauma Novitiate (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support There aren’t any cn tags remaining & there are enough details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Kamila Valieva ruling
Big international news in the world of figure skating. Probably means that the USA wins the team competition now. Natg 19 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. A fairly pedestrian sports scandal. We don't really do that on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t think we should post individual doping cases. And no-one really cares if the USA win the team event. It’s completely irrelevant who wins when someone is disqualified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would think that the significance of this would be due to the gold medal being given to the US. However, simply changing the gold medal in only one of the Olympic events doesn't seem significant enough for ITN, as we only post the closing ceremony of the Olympics, not the results of each of the games. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe this would’ve been important enough to post if the ruling had been made during the 2022 Olympics, but it doesn’t seem important enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs work This seems to be all over the news but the article is hung up by a dispute, is locked down and also tagged as a contentious topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of the timing, I do not think this rises to a pressing level of importance on its own. Kafoxe (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimy Williams
Former Major League Baseball manager. Will work on this within the next few days. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will help too. RIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks updated now ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arne Hegerfors
15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article isn't huge but it looks well sourced enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Icon of the Seas
It's getting coverage because of its size and its use of LNG as fuel. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Reasonable encyclopedic feature. Not the most impressive article, but almost everything is cited. Looks good. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of rich people go on holiday on big boat. Nigej (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this is probably simply a matter of perspective, but rich people own their own yachts, whereas the middle class is relegated to cruise ships. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As well as that, "rich people on boat" doesn't disqualify an item. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is this? Do we we have to consider people social class before add a news? 😅 3000MAX (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Half-joking of course, but is this really any different to a lovely new luxury hotel opening somewhere. Not really, it just that this one floats and moves around. Nigej (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess not. It's probably just a personal feeling of disgust that the predictable onward march of capitalism should be on a par with thousands dying in wars/ natural disasters. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...its a cruise ship PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we can probably agree on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose They keep making these bigger and bigger, this is not a sustainable record. --M asem (t) 12:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, it seems to be new record every 2 to 6 years. At a 12,000 tons increase, this is the largest jump a long while (ever?). Length-wise the increase is less impressive. Maybe it would make more sense to only feature these sorts of new records if they are particularly well-written? Not that I would mind a single feature every three years. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur, that's no sustainable record.  Bremps  ...  13:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Maplestrip, this is a constantly being broken record. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: as above, rich people on a luxury boat. Hasn't even got Jane McDonald (?) Might support if it sank. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We didn't post a blurb when Wonder of the Seas became the largest cruise ship in 2022. I don't see any reason why this should be different. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it wasn't nominated, was it? I cannot find it in the archives. If it was opposed for "significance" back then too then that would be considered precedent of a sort, though every ship and article is different. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it wasn't nominated. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonder was the last of a class of five and wan't significantly bigger or different from her predecessors. Icon is a new class and significantly bigger. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Per @Maplestrip. Interesting encyclopedic entry. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose indistinguishable from advertising. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm not in favor of giant cruise ships either but I do think it's interesting news and it does have some innovative technology. News doesn't have to be good to still be news. Because of this ship we're finally starting to get some debate on the merits of having these monstrosities roaming the oceans. I didn't know, for example, that Venice, Amsterdam, and Barcelona are closing cruise terminals and starting to restrict how many visitors can debark at a time. Others have argued that bigger ships seem to arrive every couple of years. It seems that way because the recent expansion of the Panama Canal made these bigger ships possible. Now that Icon of the Seas has gone into service they can't get much bigger, so we will see the pace of these new arrivals start to slow down. It's possible that Icon will be the biggest cruise ship for a while. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Masem. Only the largest cruise ship as of 2024. Reading List of largest cruise ships it looks like every couple of years Royal Caribbean International debuts a bigger and bigger ship. Before Icon of the Seas, the #1 largest was Wonder of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2022. Before Wonder of the Seas, the #1 largest was Symphony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2018. And before Symphony of the Seas, the #1 largest was Harmony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2016. Not to say that posting something every few years is too frequent, just that this particular record doesn't seem to be too notable. Always having another "brand new largest cruise ship in the world" seems to be the gimmick of one particular company. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Prior to the Icon of the Seas the preceding five largest cruise ships were Oasis-class cruise ships which debuted in 2009 with the Oasis of the Seas. Icon of the Seas is the first Icon-class cruise ship. Next Icon class ship Star of the Seas is coming in 2025 and the third (as yet unnamed) in 2026. Probably the last Oasis class ship Utopia of the Seas debuts later this year. When looking at from the new largest cruise ship class point of view, it has been 15 years between Oasis and Icon classes and that is the reason for excitement and news coverage. IlkkaP (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This added context is appreciated, but the knowledge that this record will be beaten very soon by another ship that's already under construction from the same company (as Chaotic Enby outlines below and you reiterated here) has brought me from a "Weak oppose" to simply an "Oppose" as this puts to bed the idea that this ship's record might last a while as one editor speculated in the !vote above mine. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Vanilla Wizard, mostly a commercial gimmick. Adding that Star of the Seas from the same class is expected to beat this record (at least in gross tonnage) when entering service next year. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, this record is continuously broken every few years. More of a marketing gimmick at this point. The   Kip  16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not of encyclopedic interest. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another cruise ship which is a bit bigger than the last one. Sourcing is mostly news sites using press releases. Lots of greenspin re LNG. Let RCI pay for their own advertising Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support She is the lead ship of the Icon-class cruise ships and as such an advancement of the Oasis-class cruise ships that have held the title of largest cruise ship past 15 years. That is the reason for the excitement and extensive news coverage. Disclosure: I am one of the editors of the article in the question. IlkkaP (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "biggest cruise" is nothing more than pure marketing that every year has to be overcome for the busimessmen. It has no encyclopedic value because of what many have said above. My condolences to the cities that will receive this macro-cruise.. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. The "world's largest ship" changes with great regularity and they all have maiden voyages. If something especially noteworthy happens during this one, we can revist the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn’t seem important enough to blurb & it sounds like the record will be beaten fairly soon. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Tower 22 drone strike

 * Oppose - covered under ongoing. If this escalates, or the US's response is extreme, then that warrants posting, but at the moment, this is just part of the Red Sea Crisis. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Red sea crisis is happening under the involvement of Houthis, also the site were the attack occurred is far from red sea, also the perpetrators aren't houthis, it's a part of attacks on U.S. in the region rather then red sea crisis or israeli-hamas conflicit. Also it's worth noting that 3 Americans are dead, which is a rare thing in these kind of attacks, last time Americans died in these attacks resulted in assassination of Qasem Solomani, which gives me a sign that this attack is in another level. 3000MAX (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rockstone. Banedon (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now This seems like spillover from the Israel-Hamas War & can be covered by that for now. That’ll change if this escalates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. This is essentially just spillover from conflicts already covered (Israel-Hamas, and the Red Sea crisis to an extent). This *might* lead to something more major in the future, but in that case, now would be far too early to post this. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered in Ongoing.
 * Setarip (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered by Ongoing - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just to note, many editors are saying that this is covered by ongoing, but I can only find links to pages containing this event in the Red Sea crisis and the Israel-Hamas war, no explicit mentions of the drone strike. Regardless of whether it is ongoing, I still think the significant impact would be the potential U.S. response, and we could mention the drone strike as something the U.S. retaliated for if a big U.S. response occurs. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Evergrande Group

 * Oppose Group has been basically out of cash since 2021, this was (as the article notes) just signing off on its death. --M asem (t) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article says the group went bankrupt in August 2023, and had collapsed financially by 2021. Being liquidated with those details in mind doesn't seem to be that significant. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, weak oppose on update We didn't post this story in 2021 or in August 2023, so I think it's still eligible to be posted. Appears to be the largest non-bank bankruptcy ever.  Article quality is fairly good, with one CN tag on a line that doesn't need to be in the article and could easily be deleted by the posting admin.  All that's missing is a prose update.  This also allows underrepresented business news to be posted to ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN generally doesn't post business news in the first place. M asem (t) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support per NorthernFalcon, especially if we didn't previously post this. The   Kip  18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with Masem, we shouldn't start the precedent of posting business news on the main page, especially given the non-profit and volunteer-based status of the project. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus against it. We're only going to tie our hands in serving as a useful news section. What if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow?  Bremps  ...  23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence of consensus for it: back when minority topics where a thing and given preferential treatment business was one. Do not confuse genuine business coverage with PR and marketing coverage. 3142 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Theoretically support, but it needs more of an update Support Sometimes business news is important enough for ITN. Given Evergrande’s role in the Chinese property sector crisis, the size of the bankruptcy & the fact that developments in 2021 & 2023 weren’t posted, I think it’s appropriate to post this now. However, the article needs more of an update. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The business' collapse was big news, but this seems a bit like posting the burial of a man who was hanged 2 years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as the saga of Evergrande's downfall goes, this is less of an important piece of the puzzle then it's collapse in 2021 or bankruptcy last year. Nothing against "financial news", but this isn't big enough at this stage of things, so oppose. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per NorthernFalcon. I don't see why we can't post business news as long as it meets the ITN standards. JM (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I disagree with Masem's insinuation that ITN doesn't post business news. We have posted business news items in the past, and even if we do not, that does not mean we should not. This might be a formality but I doubt anybody had even heard of the Evergrande Group or understood its significance when it ran out of money in 2021, and merely it running out of money would never have been posted as a news item back then. But there is significance to be found in the liquidation of a major real estate group in China. It would be as if Berkshire Hathaway went into receivership. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Evergrande Group's financial problems in 2020 caused a major real estate crisis with falling prices, decreased sales and reduced construction works. I think the story of the Chinese real estate crisis should be considered for posting at some point (we're probably already beyond that point), but it really doesn't seem that this news will severely aggravate the current situation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like it is in the news, and this doesn't seem to be a duplicate post. This is a major story in the world's second-largest economy and most populous country; just as the Spring 2023 regional banking crisis in the U.S. made its way onto ITN, so too should this Chinese real estate company. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In general I would support slightly more corporate news getting posted, but unfortunately this particular story is just a formality. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – This has been a big, long fall with a large impact on many people, and this is the end, an appropriate time to feature it. The article is indeed not very impressive, but it does document the past three years of corporate trouble. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am really not impressed by the argument that this is old news. Even if it was known that the company was done-for for a year now, this is just as good a moment to tell our readership of it as any. We're an encyclopedia, I think we should generally focus on getting our article out there at the final conclusion and not in the middle of the story. Even if it doesn't quite emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, it's still a showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. I wouldn't be surprised if most of our readers hadn't even heard of the property sector crisis, so featuring this topic would in fact serve as emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. The only argument I could understand for not featuring this, would be quality concerns... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

69th Filmfare Awards
Harvici ( talk ) 11:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in ITN/R, so it seems notable enough  Harvici  ( talk ) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry L. Taylor
65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine in its length and good in its quality. Seems fine for RD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Quality is ok. No issues.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Satoshi Kirishima
65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support now that's it confirmed If a mugshot has been around for so long its well known, and its looks okay, the article. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like the article’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Australian Open

 * Oppose on quality like many tennis articles before it, lacks any prose summary in the main article about the events themselves. The fact there is prose in some child articles like 2024 Australian Open – Men's singles doesn't take away from the fact that the main article actually needs some prose rather than just tables and lists of the results from the finals. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The quality concern over the tennis ITNR articles have been rised many times for the past few years. Correct me if I was wrong, the last time we posted a Grand Slam was the 2020 French Open, which demonstrated the standard for how well-written should an ITNR item be. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is a good example of the sort of quality we should be expecting for ITN to post this. A few sentences summarising the tournaments, with a paragraph or two on the main events (men's and women's singles) would be fine for this to get posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per Joseph2302. Just links to sub-articles and a set of pretty meaningless tables. Nigej (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. Virtually no prose beyond the lead. The   Kip  18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: War in Sudan
RSF offensive into West Kordofan started
 * Oppose - ITN isn't an armed conflict ticker. Just because a new offensive happens in a war doesn't mean we put it up, unless it gets a significant amount of attention (which this isn't). For this reason, I also think we should take down the Myanmar Civil War PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Although there was consensus to remove Sudan from the ITN Ongoing 10 days ago, it was removed on the basis that there was an insufficient quantity of updates. To quote JM from the discussion I linked, "Sudan was removed once already, but then put back up when the conflict picked back up again. No reason that we can't do that again." --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A two sentence update that covered an event from 3 days ago doesn't cut it for ongoing. We also have limited space on the ongoing line, and the conflicts listed have far more worldwide consequences at this point. --M asem (t) 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait There have only been two consecutive days in which actual updates about the fighting have been posted. Regardless of whether those updates are notable enough for ongoing, this is simply not enough days in a row to make it an ongoing item. If there are daily fighting updates for multiple more days, I might reconsider, but for now, there are simply not enough updates to make this ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The |War_in_Sudan_(2023)|Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war|2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war|Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine|Insurgency_in_the_Maghreb_(2002%E2%80%93present)|Mexican_drug_war|Myanmar_civil_war_(2021%E2%80%93present) readership stats indicate that this is not as interesting to our readers as other wars such as the Myanmar civil war and neither of them are in the same league as Ukraine or Gaza. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet again, readership numbers do not have any application to whether we include or remove stories on ITN<span id="Masem:1706473869463:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If readership stats are low, readers cannot easily access the article, so it makes sense to post it on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They were low while it was posted, too. Relative to the other features, anyway, might beat a few other wars. That's not to say we (traditionally and generally) care about what the readers want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The list of ongoing armed conflicts lists 46 different conflicts with deaths so far this year. Ongoing doesn't have space for all of them and so you have to draw the line somewhere and somehow.  The nomination provides no sources or other evidence as to why Sudan is special. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, thank you. I also don't think pointing out readership stats is disruptive, I think judging items on what is actually getting media attention is a far better metric than the incredibly arbitrary system we have now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will you stop, please? You’ve been told an innumerable amount of times how readership stats don’t matter and yet you either don’t understand or have intentionally ignored it. I’m tired of assuming good faith toward you when you continuously ignore your fellow editors. The   Kip  23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a fellow editor, I think it's good to get input from all angles, not just the ones some of us care about. Andrew may be the most prevalent stats reporter around here, but website traffic analysis is far from some nonsense he invented.
 * As a fellow badger who's also felt tired of learning about things I don't want to know, I understand you, but (professionally) advise you to "drop the stick". Just "send the pain below", nice and offscreen-like. Disruption is simply not productive. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Readership stats are inherently influenced by the contents of ITN. This is a circular argument: the presence of the Myanmar civil war article in Ongoing makes readers more likely to click it, which means that it will have higher readership stats. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds and Masem. The   Kip  23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Malcolm Gregson
English Ryder Cup golfer. Death announced on this day. Nigej (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support the articles looks fine and fairly cited Harvici  ( talk ) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) UNWRA October 7 controversy
I'm not sure whether or not this should be considered to be already covered by Ongoing, but I'll nominate it anyway so the community can decide what to do with it. It is related to the Israel-Hamas war in that it is related to October 7, but it's also a significant change in Western support toward a major UN agency whereby these 9 countries are not going to give anything to it anymore. Blurb taken and altered from Current Events entry above. Currently the top story on BBC's homepage. JM (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless the situation develops into something larger, it's not that notable right now given that these countries will probably resume funding after the investigation is over. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say any assumptions about resuming or not resuming funding after the investigation might be WP:CRYSTAL, so it's best to be careful about it. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True. I still stand by my first point though. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Per TwistedAxe. Also, the out-of-context blurb might give the NPOV impression that UNRWA as an organization was involved, while the employees (alleged to be) responsible have been fired and are under investigation by UNRWA itself. Edit: thanks for the reply, I agree that should be okay as NPOV. The investigation is still ongoing and cutting aid over it isn't necessarily that notable, although assuming anything about the future of funding (in one direction or the other) is WP:CRYSTAL. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to avoid that by changing the current events entry to match what the BBC said: UNRWA claims: UK halts aid to UN agency over allegation staff helped Hamas attack (emphasis mine). So I believe that's following NPOV. JM (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A handful of countries stopping funding some relatively minor organization because of some alleged malfeasance isn't particularly newsworthy. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Part of the ongoing. Also the article only has one or two paragraphs actually about the controversy. The rest is repeating background info and reaction kudzu (not including those that actually have stated they will pull support). --M asem (t) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above, this is sufficiently covered in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is already covered by Ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for now. Sufficiently covered by ongoing, although future events may result it posting being warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sukhbir Singh Gill
Indian field-hockey midfielder. Article is a reasonable start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, looks ready. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Texas border dispute
Another exciting episode of the new season of American Politics. I do think this one is particularily notable, getting significant amount of attention and causing a constituional crisis. It's front page on every media outlet you can think of, and the standoff is only intensifying. The blurb is poorly worded, but the complexity of this story makes it hard to fit into one line. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * an article should be specified Lukt64 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Standoff at Eagle Pass? BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is out of stub class Lukt64 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is just US politics amplified by members of the GOP. There is a potential that this may devolve into a constitutional crisis but until there's actually action on this, this is not the type of news we post. We don't simply post because a news topic floods the headlines.<span id="Masem:1706278517494:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A section called In The News shouldn't post things that are....In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should be posting things that are in the news with actual impact on the world, not just because crazy insane partisan games being played by a handful of people get coverage. Again, there is potential of a impactful result here but right now, its lot of hot air.<span id="Masem:1706280288626:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not us to judge what is partisan games or not. I think if something is getting significant attention In The News, then the most useful thing for the general reader is to put it up on a section called In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also add that the suggested article is far too narrow in scope. This all started back when the razor wire was installed (at least as early as 2022, if not earlier), and needs to discuss the lower court cases.<span id="Masem:1706280442020:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Meh. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Razor wire? Really? Oppose as political theater. Masem is right, just because it's in the news that doesn't make it newsworthy. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Something being In The News doesn't make it newsworthy? What logic is that? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Notice I said lowercase "in the news" and not "In The News" which you're using to refer to WP:ITN, and I believe you are misunderstanding the purpose if you believe that we're just acting as a news mirror. The second paragraph of WP:ITN states thus: Unlike Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and does not accept original works of journalism or first-hand reports. Wikipedians are allowed to create and update encyclopedic articles of timely interest based on reliable sources. Bolded mine. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring any major escalation, just American political theatre for now. The   Kip  14:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is also not much longer than a stub, and certainly not front-page-quality. The   Kip  19:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - the deadline for Texas issued by the Fed government is today, so if anything happens today, maybe post. I personally believe Biden is not going to do anything, but either way, I think this may have effects ringing down for years; it will send a message to a lot of other states regarding how much power they really have in the American federal system. — Knightof  theswords  15:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is mainly domestic political squabbles. Not suitable for the blurb here. Nigej (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait and oppose on quality the incident currently looks like a not very significant domestic dispute, though if it becomes something more then it could be important enough for ITN. Article is currently short too, but if more events happen, then that would likely be solved too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait it is easy to imagine this becoming important enough for ITN, but it has not yet done so. Obviously an article update would be required if additional events were to transpire. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: Article is incredibly unprepared for ITN. In terms of significance, I suggest we wait for further events to unfold especially on federal response. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor political squabble. And with all due respect, this has been going on for two weeks and I've seen nothing of it. Not seeing the "front page coverage". DarkSide830 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait. It definitely has potential to get out of hand, but if it fizzles out, based on what has happened so far, it does not meet the threshold to posting. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Note as someone from Texas, this looks like it may have the impact of starting a large secession movement again. Yet again, I dont know much about it. Lukt64 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if this becomes something other than bluster then certainly, but until then nah.  nableezy  - 21:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(Decision needed) South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)‎‎
I added something before this, should I not? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ruling is preliminary and sets the stages for years more of court hearings to prove that Israel committed genocide. --M asem (t) 13:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a preliminary ruling, it is a ruling granting preliminary measures (while the case proceeds). Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "preliminary ruling" and "ruling granting preliminary measures"? JM (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All this is is that South Africa has demonstrated enough evidence that the court will consider the full case, and has made (unenforceable) cautions to Israel.<span id="Masem:1706278389596:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a big difference, actually. The court has not made any ruling, preliminary or otherwise, on the question whether Israel has committed a genocide. What it has done is to grant interim relief and has accepted prima facie that there is a case to answer, so the case will continue. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But you just said it was a ruling in your previous reply. If it's not even a ruling at all, then this isn't significant. "Court does not make ruling" is not significant. JM (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a ruling. It is a ruling on South Africa's request for emergency measures, not the final determination of whether Israel is comitting genocide, which will take years. The ICJ granted some measures, but not others, ordering Israel to do a series of things. Endwise (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It has made a ruling. It hasn't made a ruling on the specific topic of "did Israel commit genocide", but it still made a ruling for preliminary measures (i.e. telling Israel to stop the way they're conducting the war). Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a ruling on provisional measures DMH43 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now had 3 people in a row reply to me saying that it's a ruling. 1 person saying it will suffice. JM (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It was expected that the ICJ would find South Africa's case plausible and go forward with provisional measures (the bar is very low). Maybe it would be quite newsworthy if they did actually order the ceasefire. But essentially ordering Israel to try and make sure it doesn't commit genocide means a whole lot of not-much, I think. Endwise (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not "a whole lot of not-much" because the ruling is that Israel is plausibly committing or failing to prevent genocide. That's basically the most the court can do on a time scale like this. It is certainly newsworthy DMH43 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the bar for plausibility is very low, so it means a lot less than it may seem. I think that's part of why this hasn't been getting as many headlines as you might expect. is correct to point out that this is informed a lot by my personal opinion -- so weight that accordingly -- but that's ITN for you I guess. Endwise (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a court telling Israel "please do not commit genocide" without even implying Israel is committing genocide, and without demanding a ceasefire, is not significant enough for ITN by my standards; there is no significant change occuring here. JM (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In no case would they have implied that Israel is committing genocide--it's a court, they will investigate based on this plausibility finding. DMH43 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I also agree with FortunateSons. This is a one-sided blurb with no inclusion of the demand for the unconditional release of Israeli people taken hostage by Hamas, thereby violating NPOV; I also agree with the Kip that it's covered by Ongoing anyway. JM (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Please don't commit genocide" is what they always say. This is also what happened for Myanmar and Bosnia. JDiala (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...and? JM (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. The court formally accusing Israel of genocide would’ve been one thing, but just saying “please don’t” is far from that. The lack of a call for a ceasefire also diminishes notability. The   Kip  14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The final ruling won't happen for several years, this current ruling is to adopt provisional measures, which is huge, see my comment below. DMH43 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a followup, with said lack of direct accusation/call for a ceasefire, I don't entirely see how this isn't covered by the ongoing item as well. The   Kip  19:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a call for a ceasefire also amount to "please don't"? It feels like your argument contradicts itself. On the one hand you ascribe significant weight to the lack of a ceasefire call; on the other hand, you dismiss the cease-genocide call as being irrelevant. JDiala (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support The above comments miss that the ruling on provisional measures is huge given that: the ICJ recognized the risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians should this campaign continue, the panel found that there was plausible reason to believe that Israel is committing genocide or failing to prevent genocide (almost unanimously), all but one provisional measure was adopted. The ceasefire measure was not adopted, but the court has no way to enforce a ceasefire, and the adoption of the other measures equates to a finding that Israel's campaign is plausibly genocidal. This is certainly newsworthy.DMH43 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is jpost describing it as a "harsh diplomatic blow": https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-783852
 * Not asking for a ceasefire is not the same as asking it to prevent genocide. What the court is saying is that Israel can fight a legitimate war against Hamas, but not a genocidal war against the palestinian people, and that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide or failing to prevent it. DMH43 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose summed up best by JM2023, the outcome of this is a warning not to do something, not a judicial decision that they have actually be doing it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it a warning? They have adopted all but 1 of south africas provisional measures DMH43 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re veering dangerously close to WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and I see from your talk page you’ve had some issues with ARBPIA editing in recent memory. I highly encourage you to slow down a bit. The   Kip  16:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is effectively the court determining it will take on the full case. The provisional measures are pretty basic (don't commit genocide is a statement of principles, don't destroy evidence and report to the court are related to ensuring the case can be effectively heard, allow humanitarian aid is not novel, the punish incitement to genocide is perhaps the only interesting one). Not sure where "generally, to take more measures to protect Palestinians" in the article comes from, it's not in the provisional measures or the source cited. CMD (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling them "basic" doesn't take into account the huge civilian death toll, and that so far Israel has failed to comply with these "basic" measures:
 * "The South African minister for international relations, Naledi Pandor, said outside the court that Israel can't effectively implement the measures ordered without a cease-fire. 'How do you provide aid and water without a cease-fire? If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen,' she said." https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-26/ty-article/icj-rules-israel-must-avoid-genocidal-acts-in-gaza-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/0000018d-4606-d35c-a39f-ee5e5b7e0000 DMH43 (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop WP:BLUDGEONING, your comments compose more than 1/3 of the comments on this nomination and you've replied under literally every !vote. JM (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just wanted to engage with people at a deeper level than the dismissive nature of the discussion here so far. DMH43 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't have to engage with every person you don't agree with. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably best to wait for analysis RS (and other editors) at this point. All major newsorgs are reporting on the case so won't have to wait too long. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's interim measure number 4 (of 6) "The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;" Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a general request for protective measures, that's a specific one for humanitarian aid. CMD (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - The decision is being covered in basically every major news outlet globally, and has significant diplomatic and geopolitical ramifications. I don't think we need to wait for the court's final decision to post this on ITN. Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The final decision will likely take years, while the current ruling already has a significant impact. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Endwise and JM. The ruling doesn't really change much other than telling Israel to not commit genocide. Significance would be higher had the court ordered for a ceasefire or ruled that Israel was committing genocide. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an aspect of the Israel–Hamas war which is already listed in Ongoing as it generates daily incidents and coverage of this sort. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Per @Edge3 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle This is seriously significant news of a tremendous gravity and will change international relations for years to come, even if the final ruling is different. This has the potential to impact the current war. I’m not sure on the current two blurbs, maybe another could be written, but I believe this is blurbable. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Color me skeptical that an international court is dramatically going to change how other countries deal with this conflict. I can guarantee you every country in the world has their own posture towards the war already. If some sort of discipline isn't being levied on someone then, quite honestly, I'd go as far as to say this is a nothing story. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case) to see why that is something of an oversimplification. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading. Still, I only saw one perspective that seemed of the belief that there was a decent chance for change. A lot more of the commentary was about how this affected the actions of Israel and what this means for the case going forward. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - leading headline around the world, out of the ordinary for ongoing, the opposers seem to be using personal opinion for significance, rather than deferring to what the sources consider significant, and it is very clear they consider this significant.  nableezy  - 18:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the opposers seem to be using personal opinion for significance, rather than deferring to what the sources consider significant
 * With all due respect, personal opinion is effectively what dictates ITN blurbs; there's plenty of news items that RSes consider significant that we don't post (whether it be celebrity news, covered under of one of our Ongoing events, lower-level sports news, or otherwise). The   Kip  19:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As with all things Wikipedia, sources >> personal opinions.  nableezy  - 19:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a valid sentiment, but if enforced in a hardline manner, opens up ITN to a considerable variety of events editors have previously deemed non-notable, and also furthers questions of bias due to the bulk of RS coverage concerning the western world. The   Kip  19:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like youre describing Wikipedia as a whole though. This probably can be continued on a talk page though, user or otherwise, as the philosophical discussion is not really relevant to the nomination.  nableezy  - 19:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BIAS is how we as Wikipedians evaluate the type of coverage, ignoring how much coverage there is to how significant coverage is. We also need to write towards the long view of a topic, which is why WP:NOTNEWS exists - we try to avoid being influenced by news of the minute in favor of views of the long-term (without engaging in speculation.)<span id="Masem:1706301519647:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Previously youve said ITN's primary function is to showcase quality articles on encyclopedic topics that are in the news, no matter how wide the coverage of that news is. Well here you have an excellent article on an obviously encyclopedic topic that is the top story around the world (ie, in the news). So what gives?  nableezy  - 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because 1) this is nowhere close to a final ruling (If the court dismissed the genocide charges completely, ending the case, that might have been reason to post. And in any case, whether Israel abides by this request is yet to be seen - there's nothing actionable yet set by the court) and 2) this is otherwise covered by the ongoing. I would also add this is not a quality article as nearly half of it is analysis and reaction kudzu, which is getting too much into the weeds in the light of NOTNEWS and the 10year view. M asem (t) 21:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose due to limited significance of the ruling and the fact that it is preliminary (see arguments made by others above. Additionally, both blurbs lack neutrality and are missing the demand for the unconditional release of hostages. FortunateSons (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No idea what all the opposes are about, major news event. Israel needs to "report back" in a month so we will see what happens then. About the same time as the hearings into Israel's occupation will take place, also at the ICJ. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose is a preliminary pronouncement, which is more declaratory than effective, and is also covered in Ongoing. More interesting will be the judgment. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Extensive news coverage. Given the nature of the accusation and the magnitude of the allegation (genocide), this absolutely warrants coverage. JDiala (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Major world news covered live by most news services of note. Landmark ruling on the world's most acute humanitarian crisis now accounting for 80% of the world's population at risk of starvation. The ICJ, the highest court in the UN and therefore the world, has imposed provisional measures, a.k.a. emergency orders, to prevent genocide where the court has determined that there is a clear risk of prejudice to the rights protected by the the genocide convention. It's not preliminary to the main proceedings, but provisional and separate to them. The court has determined A) jurisdiction, and B) the need for emergency measures given the risk of prejudice. The merits of the case will be determined in the case proper. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there is no real enforcement given in the decision: the court ordered Israel to keep its operations within certain bounds to avoid genocide, and to report back to the court. That's for all purposes a slap on the wrist.<span id="Masem:1706301644968:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * International law isn't really enforced much in practice. Ask Putin. This is the nature of the anarchic world order. The symbolic significance is precisely the point. JDiala (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb - it’s more comprehensive than the first blurb and is consistent with headlines that I have seen.
 * Oppose first blurb - seems poorly worded “prevent genocidal acts” seems vague while the alternative blurb has wikilinks Wafflefrites (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Major world news and the article is of pretty good quality. But I don't think the New York Times article linked in the ITN candidate sources= above should be used, as it is a rolling news article that keeps changing, it is a poor cite as using it for verification is difficult - find another stable source to use. Rwendland (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * but Oppose Alternative blurb 1 & 2 as they include a claim not factually accurate in strict terms: "declines to order a ceasefire" is incorrect because South Africa did not ask for a 2 party "ceasefire", so ICJ cannot be said to decline something not asked for. As the ICJ Order record on page 3, SA asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-side "suspension", not a "ceasefire". (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things like cease fire, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see how the ruling has any significance. TheInevitables (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current article states that the court order only says Israel should "take more measures to protect Palestinians". This does not seem to be any sort of ruling on previous actions, but an order to do something going forward. I could see how ordering Israel to completely stop all military operations might be considered a real ruling, but this not so much. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support All oppose editors have suggested lack of real world significance, but without providing sources. They are wrong. See for example: Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're the nominator, your support is already counted by your act of nomination. JM (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I found a source saying that the decision had little "practical consequences". https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-genocide-ruling-israel-gaza.html The article specifically says that the ruling "lacked immediate practical consequences". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You should read the whole of that New York Times article. The point you raised is explained within the article (and you have incorrectly conflated "little" with "practical consequences"). What it actually says is: "But it lacked immediate practical consequences" and "To Gazans, the intervention will bring little immediate relief." So that part is talking about having no ceasefire. You then missed this from later in your same article: "Still, the court’s instructions might give momentum and political cover to Israeli officials who have been pushing internally to temper the military’s actions in Gaza and alleviate the humanitarian disaster in the territory, according to Janina Dill, an expert on international law at Oxford University. “Any dissenting voices in the Israeli government and Israeli military who disagree with how the war has been conducted so far have now been given a really powerful strategic argument to ask for a change in course,” Professor Dill said. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge my misuse of "little" with "immediate", and should have read more of the article to find your quoted section. The quote: "Any dissenting voices in the Israeli government and Israeli military who disagree with how the war has been conducted so far have now been given a really powerful strategic argument to ask for a change in course," does seem to support the argument that this does have important impact. However, I think the quote: "But it lacked immediate practical consequences" still supports the argument that its immediate impact is minimal. So maybe this is not a conclusive source. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this comment bright green? &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a quote, formatted with  Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually it's (is there any functional difference?) JM (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's an actual difference and I always confuse them, my bad ( is for quotes and is teal-ish green while is for example text and a more vivid green)  Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, logging out and I can see the quote formatted in green text but there's also a giant green shaded box covering this reply chain that only seems to show up when logged in and in dark mode but I digress. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 1 or alt blurb 2 This decision isn’t the final decision, but it seems important enough for ITN. I think the alt blurbs seem better than the original blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Storng support: Per Chaotıċ. I don't think the perception of how "important" the ruling itself is what matters here. It's a major case with wide coverage, and this is the most significant update for the foreseeable feature, as the final ruling will take years forward --Abbad (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC).
 * (fyi: it's "Chaotic" with the tittle moved in a chaotic way) Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Israel is not bound by this decision, and it doesn't seem like it's actually ordering Israel to do anything different anyway. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is legally bound by it as a signatory to the convention. Whether Israel ignores its obligations under international law, per its usual form, is a different question. And asking it to not kill or harm people would at this point requires it to do something very different indeed - possibly beyond its abilities. Only media with very entrenched bias are trying to spin this as being the same as existing obligations and therefore not an order to do anything different. Obviously, however, the context is that Israel is failing to abide by international humanitarian law and therefore it needs instructing, under pain of international ostracism, to abide by its international legal duties. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this reply violates the contentious topics policy.... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on the remainder of the reply, but I do agree with the first sentence. Israel is a party to the case and is therefore bound by the decision of the ICJ. Edge3 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded JM (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Chaotic Enby. Adding that waiting for a final verdict is not a reasonable request; we are still waiting on one in the Rohingya genocide case to this day. I believe we were right to post the ICC arrest warrant for Putin in spite of the fact that no one believes there is a high likelihood of such an arrest ever happening. Of course, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, nothing ever is when it comes to messy geopolitics. But I believe it helps to demonstrate that there is precedent for posting international developments that are very much in the news and notable in their own right, regardless of the perceived likelihood of a practical consequence in the near future. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 00:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per above, overwhelming amount of coverage across worldwide media. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Widely covered in international media that justifies posting even if it is preliminary ruling that the genocide claims are plausible and to be investigated. Waiting for a final result isn't practicable (e.g. the Yugoslav genocide cases were field in the 1990s and resolved in the 2010s), and the news here is that the case was not thrown out, but instead resulted in multiple impositions on Israel during an active conflict. Also as a note, this decision literally could not have made a finding of genocide because of its preliminary nature. That decision will come later. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability Article quality is generally good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per JM; also covered in Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 10:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Obviously this is a very notable case, but I have concerns about blurbing a preliminary action, so I think that, for now, the Ongoing entry should suffice. DecafPotato (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close A quick glance at the wall of comments above shows the supports and opposes to be almost evenly split. I'm all for letting things play out as long as there is some chance of a consensus forming. But even considering NOTAVOTE, there is no realistic likelihood of that, either for or against. It's time to admit as much and lower the curtain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is still getting active participation, and given such a close would result in your preferred outcome I dont think that is an appropriate suggestion for you to make.  nableezy  - 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this, there are still people voting, and it looks like more recent votes have more supports than opposes compared to older ones, so it's not impossible for consensus to shift. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JM. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just don't see it as a significant-enough event. Israel is not to commit genocide, which they deny anyway. Hamas is to release their hostages, which they haven't done, and the court decides not to mention anything about Israel suspending military operations, that South Africa has requested. Nigej (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – This is notable development worthy of including in a blurb. Widely covered by sources. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does anybody really think that this major court ruling is less "in the news" than "protests in Bashkortostan"? The contrast here between the expressly "in the news" event and the incredibly marginal one is quite jarring. I know that "in the news" has always been a bit a popularity contest, but seriously, come on people. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't include either. Perhaps one reason this didn't had more support was the one-sided wording of the original blurb. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because an event isn't receiving heavy coverage from major Western publications doesn't make it "marginal," and we try to selectively post stories from outside that sphere to avoid giving in to our own media-intake bias.
 * i The   Kip  18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There appear to be zero indications that this order is going to have any enforcement behind it. This seems to be just politicians bloviating and making grand gestures, per usual. If anything substantiative comes out of this, then I'm sure that will make the news. Also covered in ongoing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Wow, this is a very impressive and detailed article! Like many others here, I am doubtful this result has any impact on the ongoing situation whatsoever, but it would be a shame not to feature such a well-written and well-cited article that's in the news. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt1. Important ruling in international law, major news worldwide, and the article is excellent - detailed and very well referenced. I prefer the altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 on notability, though I think "ICJ" might warrant being written in full. I expect the next time this will be posted will be a final judgment or if anything spectacular happens. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 on notability. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Jesse Jane
Sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 09:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The tables in the "Awards" & "Filmography" sections need references. References can probably be found in the prose. Support The “Filmography” section is referenced now & I see that the references in the “Awards” section are in a table that’s off to the side. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(Actioned) Ongoing: Red Sea crisis
Not exactly a nomination; I am aware that this article is already listed in Ongoing as (Houthi involvement), but given the page move, I propose un-bracketing it and having it stand as its own entry with its actual title. There was some discussion on the talk page about this that led to this pseudo-nomination. JM (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal per nomination. The Red Sea crisis at this point is separate from the Israel–Hamas war. DecafPotato (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the merge aspect should be worked out first - those are two different articles covering the same effective topic. --M asem (t) 05:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, the matter has escalated and is worthy of ITN. Harvici  ( talk ) 06:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I think you could display it either way to be honest. It is fundamentally linked to the Israel conflict, but I could see it standing on its own. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as is. Link should definitely be renamed, and I think it's appropriate to separate it completely now. I don't think the ongoing merge discussion is an issue. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like the most sensible way to do this. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The Red Sea crisis, although related to the current Israel-Hamas war, is thousands of kilometres away. If it were to be considered part of the same war, I'd say it's a different theatre, and still deserves its own entry. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this indeed ongoing in the sense that it should be in a separate entry in the ongoing tab. Despite the yappings of the Houthis, this is largely separate; they aren’t just targeting Israeli ships and are fighting against different people. List as Red Sea Crisis. — Knightof  theswords  13:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Knightoftheswords BilledMammal (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a clearly separate event from the other war. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 14:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Actual news affecting many different entities. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The scope of the crisis has expanded beyond its connection to the war, and the page move further emphasizes that. The   Kip  14:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as it has become seperate from the israel-hamas war. Setarip (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Item's got wide consensus and is marked as ready. The   Kip  19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Actioned I’ve made it a standalone item under its article name as per the above consensus.  Schwede 66  19:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sanath Nishantha
Sri Lankan Politican, former State Minister of Water Supply. Titanciwiki talk / contrib 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ok and is adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Re-nominated; attention needed) First use of nitrogen hypoxia as capital punishment
American murderer, executed by the state of Alabama. First execution in history via nitrogen hypoxia. TarkusAB talk / contrib 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it pains me to oppose this, especially since I oppose the death penalty and think it's important that people be aware of the fact that it's still happening.... but he doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article, as the article is about his execution. This means he doesn't qualify for RD. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article was just moved (after the nomination) and it should probably be reverted by an admin. The move was improper. The article is about him, not just the execution. TarkusAB talk / contrib 04:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For your awareness. I think your move was improper. TarkusAB talk / contrib 04:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did the move is because, the article is about the crime Smith is convicted and executed for, and many details are covering his trial and execution, and there was no background information about Smith before the case, so the title: execution of __(name)___ is appropriate NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (violence and deaths) - see this guideline for more information NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be reverted by an admin; anyone can do it... I'll do it if you want. One issue though is that the article is only 25 days old. Is that long enough to be appropriate for RD? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Flip the Script? Kenneth Smith was nobody special, to hear "his" article tell it, and seemingly didn't exist until his crimes (again, per article). But our article on Inert gas asphyxiation is something special, next to the relatively cruel and unusual practices described in Hanging, Electric chair, Gas chamber and Lethal injection. Maybe the arrival of a kinder, gentler capital punishment is what we should commemorate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, this wasn't kind or gentle at all.... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  11:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Surely the issue here is exactly the same as that for Mohammed Ghobadlou . This is not suitable for RD. The only possibility is the blurb, but for me it's not significant enough. Nigej (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Disqualified, close this nomination has the same problem as the one below: it's not a biographical article, so it's disqualified from RD. JM (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Boldly re-opened Though morbid, I think the introduction of a new form of capital punishment (at a time when almost everywhere in the world is not engaging with any form) is potentially ITN-worthy, and I think this discussion was closed prematurely. I have also changed the focus of the nom in line with this: I think the Inert gas asphyxiation article should be the target, where there is an update of good size and quality for the news. Hopefully, by not trying to put the information into an RD skin, discussion will be on the merits of posting the story. As an unrelated note, I also see no issue with the newness of Smith's article or its crime-focused content. As a career criminal who was sentenced to execution before Wikipedia existed, it seems logical for that to be the case and for it to still pass GNG as a bio, so I would suggest moving it back to being a bio. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And Support alt1 based on relevance. Kingsif (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb I think this is important enough for ITN, but I think the Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith article should be the target. The execution is what's in the news & the Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith article seems to be in better shape than the Inert gas asphyxiation article, which has multiple uncited paragraphs. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At Inert gas asphyxiation there was one cn tag mid-sentence and one instance of a ref not being copied to the end of a paragraph that had been broken up, both of which I have resolved. No need to be hyperbolic. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1st paragraph in the “Physiology” section is still uncited, as is a block quote in that section, so those problems & the problems you fixed were problems that were large enough that article quality was a concern when I reviewed that article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not suitable for RD and not significant enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bat-Sheva Dagan
Polish-born Holocaust survivour and educator. Her article looks great. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Seems well referenced and no citation tags on it.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Ingenuity end of mission
needs an update on the body for this though the lede mentions it M asem (t) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, added a short paragraph in the body describing the ending and remaining work. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, but would prefer a different blurb - the current one doesn't quite sit right. The   Kip  23:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: significant as mission end of the first extraterrestrial aircraft. Only 2 CN tags, so not a disqualifying issue. 5 tags though, I don't know if that's a big issue or not. JM (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 72 flights might be a better detail to include? Stephen 00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposed altblurb including both years and flights. JM (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * support, long live ingenuity and perserverance 111.92.81.250 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt3; I think we should emphasis part of the reason this mission was so extraordinary. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant news. I think either altblurb or altblurb1 would be fine. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant altblurb or altblurb2, pardon me. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - rest in peace, Ingenuity. May you keep flying in the heavens above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Preference for Alt II as per @JM2023 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I question the notability of the event. If something positive such as a discovery happened then I think it should be posted, but the ending of a mission is not notable IMO. You can end many space programs without having achieved anything. Arind8 (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – I see this as featuring the Ingenuity article at its "final" state, so to speak. I think this is very appropriate. Update to the article looks alright. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really the final state as works remains to be done, including downloading the remaining data. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Arind8 that we should indicate a significant achievement/discovery from this mission, but don't oppose it because the helicopter "made the first powered, controlled extraterrestrial flight by any aircraft". I'll request the blurb to be amended on WP:ERRRORS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Is this really that notable to be posted? This is just the end of one of many space missions. Like Arind8 said, perhaps if there were any groundbreaking discoveries this would be notable. Fightmeaboutit (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm late but I agree with Arind8 too. The launch was historic, but the end of the space mission after three years is less impactful. Wqwt (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Rafiuddin Hashmi
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Quite Ready A couple CNs in the awards section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know the language in the REFs, but I wonder if the footnotes in the Career section can be re-used there. --PFHLai (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Riddell

 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Protests against Javier Milei
Simón, el Silbón (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, but the article quality may need improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article suffers from POV issues PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously important. Also fuck austerity Kasperquickly (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This seems to be routine domestic politics for Argentina, which always seems to be in a state of crisis. If we don't report the daily developments of US politics, then this doesn't warrant special attention.  Demonstrations of ten of thousands don't seem large, as these things go.  According to the NYT report, Milei still has high approval ratings but the article doesn't say that and so lacks WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I feel like the article and this blurb give an undue weight as to how large these protests actually are and how much dissatisfaction there is against Milei. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. Maybe this will turn into something bigger, maybe not. Nigej (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this doesn't seem significant enough for listing on ITN per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Per Andrew, these don't seem to be anything out of the ordinary as of now. However, it could escalate later on.2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per Andrew. if this evolves into something bigger, then maybe. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dissatisfied people who didn't vote him going on protests isn't significant, unless this results in his removal from office or other major changes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several NPOV reasons, too long to explain here. I have tagged the article and explained the reasons at the talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I also moved the article to 2024 general strike against Javier Milei. The name suggests to be a general article about several protests against Milei, but it is actually an article about a single and specific protest. Cambalachero (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose insignificant. Setarip (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Strikes and political protests in Argentina rival soccer for the national pastime. I would need to see some evidence, currently lacking, that this is a really big deal. And on a side note, the article is tagged for NPOV. That's a showstopper until the tag is resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: ABilly S. Jones-Hennin
African-American LGBT rights activist – ForsythiaJo (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty good. I'd like to see the lead expanded though. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article is of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Good quality ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howard Golden
– Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Couple of CN tags for info not covered in refs at the end of the paragraph.  Spencer T• C 05:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will address those today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , it's all sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Melanie
Although not a likely pass, Melanie was a folk singer songwriter who preformed at Woodstock 1969, and had one number one in 1971/1972 with Brand New Key. Article needs helps about everywhere. TheCorriynial (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article looks fine and the one word title should work well at RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing is going to need some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do all albums need citations, even those with their own articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That said, if the articles have any sourcing at all this should be an easy fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tagging's even easier than fixing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are currently at least 6 {cn} tags in the prose. And multiple bullet-points in the discography section unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No {cn} tags left. Time for a re-review, please, anyone? -PFHLai (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support posting this. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Now looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Fried
– GuardianH (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason . -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed. GuardianH (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still seeing multiple CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sections on his Legal career and his Works have remained largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem @PFHLai These issues can certainly be addressed (I'll have to work on the article at some point) but they don't seem to affect the article for RD. I think there's been enough coverage to justify the article's presence in the news. Also, now a NYT article. GuardianH (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @GuardianH Article quality is the principal criteria for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @GuardianH Having news articles to back up the report on the subject's death only qualifies for RD on Portal:Current events and for inclusion in Deaths in 2024. (It's there already.) To get onto ITN on MainPage, the wikibio does not have to be a perfect FA, but it ought to be problem-free. Inadequate referencing is a common problem that keeps many nominated articles from getting onto ITN. For the Charles Fried article, the multiple {cn} tags in the prose and a string of unsourced bullet-points are eye-catching problems that make this article a poor candidate for use on ITN at this time. However, this article will continue to be eligible for ITN for a couple more days, so there is still time to add more references and footnotes before its eligibility expires (and the nom rolls off ITN/C). --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. I'll try to improve it in the near future if I can. GuardianH (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes! --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Korochansky Il-76 crash

 * Note - Ukraine says that the plane was carrying missiles, not POWs. I'm not saying either side is lying, but we may have to wait until whether it had POWs or missiles becomes clear. Tube·of·Light 16:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And Russia says that the plane has been shot down, not "crashed". Actually so does the nyt Kasperquickly (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Currently debating whether or not this is notable. It definitely is related to the war, but the resulting coverage of this may be enough. We must maintain NPOV as per @Tube of Light, there are too many unknowns atm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - until we've got some concrete information as to who/what was onboard and what caused it to crash. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait, per Nigej. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is a major plane crash. There's no point in waiting because Russia and Ukraine will never agree on what happened. If necessary, change the blurb to "carrying 74 people" instead of mentioning Ukrainian POWs. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  08:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Has the death count of 74 been independently verified in any way? 70.181.1.68 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support primarily on the basis of notability. The article is well-sourced and of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support POWs are essentially civilians when it comes to the rules of war, and we would have posted it if it was a civilian plane being shot down. In fact, im pretty sure that civilian Malaysian plane that had been shot by the Russian rebels was posted here. Hence, my support vote. Kasperquickly (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is part of the ongoing war for which we continuously list the timeline to cover all such incidents. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The information in the article still indicates that, while Russia says that plane was carrying POW's, Ukraine still has not corroborated this. We should probably wait until some third party provides evidence in support of either of their claims. As for notability, I would only support it if there is some other impact from the crash. I think the crash itself can be adequately covered in the ongoing.2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, such events are quite rare and notable, although this is partially covered by ongoing, the incident is still major and article appears to be in good quality. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alternative blurb pretty notable. Setarip (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose already covered by ongoing. Whether Ukrainian prisoners of war, or missiles, is part of the Russian-Ukrainian war. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose War's result in planes being shot down and people getting killed. It's covered in ongoing.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it turns out that it carried civilians unrelated to the war, which seems unlikely according to the information that we have so far. Otherwise, it’s covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Very notable. But seeing the updates on this event, it seems unlikely that Ukraine or Russia will confirm any details soon. Hope we won't have to wait till it becomes irrelevant. AnalyserOP (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Mohammed Ghobadlou
Iranian man executed for his participation in the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests NoonIcarus (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Disqualified, close: RD articles need to be biographical (about the person, not the death). JM (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no such rule at the main RD page (see Deaths in 2024). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD says An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article, in which "biographical article" is interpreted to mean article on life, not death, something shown by the last time an RD was nominated without being a biographical article. JM (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes, an event article has a substantial enough biographical component of its main player(s). They just can't have articles due to WP:BLP1E. That said, I'm not seeing enough in this article (which is not written well), so Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been improved since the nomination. Adding updater. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JM. The concern is whether this man is WP:N. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NOTE I am reopening this discussion which I think was closed prematurely. I agree that it does not meet our guidelines for RD. However, it might be worth discussing as a possible blurb if anyone wants to propose one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Doomsday Clock
We now have AI and drone swarms to add to the growing list of existential threats... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose No blurb... nothing changed. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 23:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Snow close how does andrew always post the most useless thing it didnt even change??????????????? Lukt64 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)\
 * Assume Good Faith. No need to be rude PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Snow close-- it didn't change, so there's no story here. -- please be more polite. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. There is no update here. Per BBC: The Doomsday Clock - which shows how symbolically close the world is to nuclear Armageddon - is to remain at 90 seconds to midnight. Scientists have listed reasons for keeping its hands the closest they have ever been to "Doomsday" - but stopped short of nudging it further forward. (bolded for emphasis) Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it didn't change Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the number did change, the clock time would still be trivial. It is a completely arbitrary measurement with no bearing in reality. Curbon7 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and speedy close The clock has not changed, not sure why this was nominated. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * SNOW Close Old news, last changed a year ago. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know who decided that some arbitrary clock was a good measure of how close we all are to blowing each other up. This is purely a publicity stunt that has no relation to anything tangible or quantifiable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Arch of Reunification demolition
Demolished some time between 19 and 23 January, but reported today. Rather a historical move, regardless of further developments. Brandmeistertalk  21:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - somewhat well known landmark, but also comes as North Korea has publicly ruled out reunification with the South. Regardless of how well known the arch was, it is very mucus much emblematic of a big shift in Korea. — Knightof  theswords  22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * very mucus?? oh no, it snot!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused because, from what I've seen, North Korea still wants the reunification of the entire peninsula, just under their rule and without the existence of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, not any more; they have seemingly abandoned reunification. — Knightof  theswords  15:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe what the editor is referring to is reunification in the sense of the country's constitution should reflect the issue of "occupying", "recapturing" and "incorporating" the South into its territory (from the article you linked). i.e., southern territory reunified with northern territory unilaterally under the DPRK alongside the state extinction of the ROK. JM (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was, thanks. I guess this is just the end of any hope of peaceful resolution to the conflict, not that there was much in the first place. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see the significance. From article — "It was opened in August 2001 to commemorate Korean reunification proposals put forward by Kim Il Sung" — so it isn't even a historical monument, it only existed for around twenty years, and it wasn't made to commemorate an event or some real steps. Just proposals.
 * The reunification being ruled out is not a major event, it's the reality what everyone understands. During the years of division, North Korea has become increasingly isolated, and South Korea is now of the most technologically advanced countries. Purely local event. No reunification was possible before public statements, they don't change anything, no blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Look, I understand the significance of the message being sent, but this is essentially, “tyrant has temper tantrum, tears down twenty year-old thing that his dad built,” vibe to me. RPH (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but the article quality needs improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. Regardless of how insignificant any NK threats of launching spy satellites and boosting the nuclear arsenal are, this is something of a symbol that was ordered demolished in concert with inscribing South Korea as the primary foe in the constitution. So there's something to it. Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think referring to Russians using an ethic slur is appropriate for Wikipedia and I think that you should strike it. JM (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the biggest deal. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a little astonishing to read. JM (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its designation as a slur on that article seems dubious, source used doesn't refer to it as such (and many others state it's simply a term for 'ethnic Russian' without negative subtext), though I can see how it may be offensive. Still, pointless discussion to have here, I raised the topic at the article talk page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the fact that what's significant (if anything) is the end of any pretense of reuinification, not the demolition of a 22-year-old monument to it. JM (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly some sort of symbolic gesture from Kim Jong Un, but we've really no idea what that is. Currently not significant enough. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tentative Oppose I have to oppose this for the moment simply because it would contradict what the article currently says, that the demolition hasn't been independently verified. IF it is confirmed, I might reconsider.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the wider geopolitics concerns about North Korea tend to be underplayed, and this act is symbolic for much of Asia.
 * Arind8 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Big picture See Is North Korea's leader actually considering war? in which the demolition is seen as part of a plan for war. Or is it just sabre-rattling?  The experts are divided so we may need to wait for further developments. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This isn't making the news, has no wider repercussions in itself, whether or not it's symbolic of a change in the direction of the NK leadership, and just isn't that big a deal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it's a sign of future issues, then those future issues could be posted here if and when they become ITN worthy. But this one event is not ITN worthy in itself. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose may be a harbinger of ITN-worthy developments, but is not ITN-worthy in its own right. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It's a significant landmark, and significant to North Korea. We would support the dismantling of The Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument, this is no different; maybe even more symbolic as it symbolises a geopolitical aspiration. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not North Korean, but associating this arch to the Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument seems facetious. I am doubtful that it rises to that level of significance as a monument / landmark. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from the many more years and much more publicity those two have, many American and French people actually read this culturally significant and geopolitically aspirational site, and might reasonably expect to see us write something about such hypothetical news. I, for one, oppose their destruction. Not opposing this nom, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose While an argument could be made that it is notable that, as said in the article, Kim Jong Un is denouncing the goal of reunification, the demolition of the arch itself doesn't seem to have any impact. At the very least, no impact is listed in the article.2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support due to notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability due to the significance of the landmark. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Propaganda monument torn down by pouting Communist dictator. Maybe we need to update WP:NOT to include "Wikipedia is not a propaganda service for tin pot dictators trying to get attention."  -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I, for one, read it the other way: barbaric demolition of a 20-year+ landmark that shouldn't go into oblivion. But anyway... ~ Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Osgood
– Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in decent shape and pretty well referenced. I saw a handful of sentences lacking a cite, but the claims were either trivial or supported at least by implication elsewhere in the article and didn't see any point in tagging them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Uqturpan earthquake
7.1 magnitude earthquake. Minimal damage so far, but notable based on the size of the quake. Natg 19 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * oppose per “minimal damage”. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No one's even died in this earthquake, so I oppose. Quake1234 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN isn't a natural disaster ticker. Good faith nom, but not notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose not notable as per above, minimal damage and death. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose agreeing with the sentiments above ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose no one died Setarip (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But the casualties have been updated, that 3 peoples died. Are you still going to oppose? Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Three unfortunate deaths, but too few to be ITN-interesting. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The region where the earthquake took place was somewhat rural and had minimal impact on humanity. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;The Chinese province of Yunnan was beset by a landslide yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of no less than 30 people. It doesn't seem like there's been any confirmation that this landslide is a direct result of the 7.1 earthquake, but if it does turn out that they are related, we should probably consolidate the two events into a single blurb. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtis (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yunnan is nowhere close to Xinjiang (4000km away) so I am doubtful these are connected. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arno Allan Penzias
Needs a little bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's definitely notable enough as a Nobel-winner, but the article is still a little on the short side and some of the references may need some adjusting. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNRD, any article of a recently dead subject can be posted, provided they meet quality requirements. Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Article in good enough shape. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Jewison
Notable director, some citations still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest a blurb when nominated, it was added later by a different user. I recommend only listed as a recent death. Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Very influential film director, was nominated for Oscar staggering seven times and won Thalberg Award. Won other important honours — BAFTA, David Donatello Award, Berlin Silver Bear and others. Made Fiddler on the Roof, Moonstruck, and In the Heat of the Night, the latter starring Sidney Poitier and being the staple of anti-racism work. From Guardian obit by Peter Bradshaw — "For five extraordinary decades, Norman Jewison’s film-making was the beating heart of Hollywood drama: he could do anything and supercharged it with idealism, confidence and style. Jewison has been behind an extraordinary array of classics and hits: for half the time the cinema has been in existence, Norman Jewison was the gold standard of a night at the movies." In Thomas Crown Affair and Cincinnati Kid "he invented the stylish presence of Steve McQueen". Kirill C1 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is exactly what RD is for. He was nothing like important enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look (for RD only, of course).—Bloom6132 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Oppose blurb. He was a significant figure but not Cecil B DeMille. Once the article is up to scratch RD is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look.—Bloom6132 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Article is in very good condition. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gigi Riva
Considered to be one of the best players of his generation, as well as one of the greatest strikers of all time. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support most definitely, as a fellow Italian! I must address, though, that the "Club career" section needs to be cleaned up of some really sketchy sourcing: I hope I'll be able to help myself. Still, what a terrible loss... Oltrepier (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - heavily sourced! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good enough to me. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dexter King
American activist and youngest son of Martin Luther King Jr. <span style="font-family:georgia;display:inline-block;transform:skew(-13deg)"> RONIN  TALK   19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - A few bits still need citations (working on it). Funcrunch (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks much better than it did earlier. Good enough to go now I think ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Ram Mandir
Needs some updating post it's actual consecration that happens in exact 4 hours from now Significant religious event that marks the culmination of long drawn movement to build the Ram temple in India. It's history has been mired in long drawn legal battles that has spanned over more than 200 years in 2019. Hailed as an event of lifetime for the fellow Indians, was also a political movement for many organizations based out of India. Has been covered in epic proportion by the media from all around the world. Regards,  theTigerKing  03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Once the event is completed and necessary updates are made to the article, we can put it up on ITN. Leoneix (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support to Alt blurb and alt blurb 3. Leoneix (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We posted the court decision to allow the building, and also the start of the building. Stephen 05:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - It has been inaugurated. Interesting story that I hadn't heard of until now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Needs work To understand the significance, see Why India’s New Ram Temple Is So Important. But the main article has future tense statements which may now be in the past or present.  And the proposed blurbs try to cram in too many links to other articles.  But none of them have the essential English word "temple" which is needed as context for the general reader.  An image is needed too but I'm adding one now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above; I have also added another altblurb taking into account Andrew Davidson's comment as well as ITN wikilink conventions. DecafPotato (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mandir and temple mean the same Regards,  theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, however "Mandir" may be unfamiliar to the general English-speaking audience expected on the front page of Wikipedia. DecafPotato (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Opposition by formality We have already posted the groundbreaking ceremony in August 2020. No need to post its inauguration. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability The inauguration itself is massively important, and the fact that we posted about it 4 years ago doesn't mean it isn't in the news today. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb3 I think it's the clearest at explaining the importance of the event to a global audience. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it Ram Mandir or "The Ram Mandir"? The article has "The Ram Mandir" but the blurb just has "Ram Mandir." QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a major symbolic topic for Hindus and has been a major agenda in politics for many years, with the version of "Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ayodhya in India." I oppose using the "dispute" word because it's too unclear as to what is actually disputed because it's no worse than Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is actually disputed, and the argument in this debate seems to be more about how to apply property law to the site. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There seem to be several disputes including:
 * Was this really the birth place of Rama?
 * Is his name Ram or Rama?
 * The exact history of the site and its previous mosque/temples
 * The credit for making this happen
 * The implications of the event – is this the Ram Rajya?
 * On Wikipedia the topic is subject to WP:ARBIP sanctions and especially extended confirmed protection. So, the opinions of new editors should perhaps be discounted.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * His name is Rama if transliterated from Sanskrit and Ram if transliterated from Hindi. See the third paragraph of this page: Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages. --84.252.98.62 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, what does that make it in English? Currently, the English-language Wikipedia is going with Rama, just like  Krishna and Yoga. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my experience, Ram, Krishan, Yog is more common in North India while Rama, Krishna, Yoga is more common in South India (specifically Dravidian language speakers) and in Europe/US. --84.252.98.62 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The questions asked seems to relevant (Ram or Rama and so on ); either we declare them in the beginning and use them consistently thereafter to mantain the flow and avoid confusion to the readers of the articles. Regards,  theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I would also add that "Rama" seems to be the most common in East Asia and South East Asia as well. In fact I have always heard the term as Rama and not Ram except in the context of the Ram Temple. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this related to India vs Pakistan? There was a mosque on the site but that's related to Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims don't identify any more with Pakistanis than they do with Persians or Arabs, similar to Indonesians relationship with Arabs. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * India/Pakistan/Afghanistan as a whole is designated as a CTOP, regardless of whether this article has anything to do with more than one.  The   Kip  18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. You could make a similar argument about anything related to history, mythology and religion. The original use of Stonehenge is disputed for example. Did Jesus exist? etc...
 * 2. Ram and Rama are the same word. It's no difference to Jesus and Yesus.
 * 3. Scientifically there is no dispute about what was there. As to who should be allowed to use it is a case for property law.
 * 4. I think there is virtually no dispute about who is taking credit for this in the eyes of the Indian public; the right wing is viewed as supporting the Mandir and the left wing as opposing the Mandir.
 * 5. There is no discussion about the Ram Rajya. It's seen as a milestone in the political conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and the aftermath of removing the negatives of colonialism for the Hindu side.
 * 6. This is more related to the Hindu - Muslim conflict than anything to do with Pakistan. Rama is important for Buddhists and Jains to, and is widely understood in countries like Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka. Pakistan should not have a big say in this article. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * CommentWould rather not recommend the word "dispute" in the blurb considering it has been "resolved" by the final authority which is the Supreme Court of India and "Accepted to" by all the parties involved. Period! Regards,  theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the alt blurbs Surely the news here is the "dispute", otherwise I don't see this as any different to any other temple/church/whatever opening around the world. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - The main article was super unstable and is currently under full protection due to persistent editwarring and content dispute. Multiple discussions are underway right now for the resolutions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support to the "Alternative blurb". The event is notable on its own despite we posting about the groundbreaking 3 years ago. But the full protection on the page makes it difficult to copy edit it. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom, the consecration ceremony was completed. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Support, per above. This has received significant coverage and is definitely notable. Article needs minor updates but don't see anything that should prevent us from posting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1, but should it be "The Ram Mandir" not "Ram Mandir"? Not sure. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Would recommend NOT posting Alt Blurb 3. The original blurb or Alt. blurb 2 would suffice - the land itself is the reason behind the long and ongoing dispute. The way Alt Blurb 3 reads, it oversimplifies the dispute by narrowing it down to a single argument (ie., whether its his birthplace or not) Schwinnspeed (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb1 or 2 The construction of Ram's Temple is internationally defined by how it was hotly contested for decades, highlighted by how many articles covering this ceremony discussed it to various lengths. To downplay or ignore it is ludicrous and (ironically) pretty biased. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 21:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb2 I'm unfamiliar with a lot of Indian current events, so I'm not the best judge of notability, but from my brief look at the article, I think it deserves a place in ITN. I specifically support Alt2 because it specifies what type of site it is to the uninitiated (yes, it's repetitive for people familiar for the topic) and it also mentions that the birthplace is disputed. ❤History  Theorist❤  00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 It is short, acknowledges the question on the site's history but without touching onto anything overly controversial. --M asem (t) 05:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3, given the immense coverage in news and article receiving over a million views in just a span of a week.  Ratnahastin  (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, i.e. Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India. The dispute ceased to exist after Supreme Court ruling. Even the legal parties don't call it a dispute any longer after they got alternative land for mosque.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 05:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. AryKun (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, main one. Satisfies ITN and other guidelines; no longer a disputed site since the SC verdict. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3, as this is the clearest. The blurb should explain why it's disputed, but the event is definitely noteworthy and in the news enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Alt3 is likely the most appropriate and concise. The article on the dispute itself seems to me to be detailed and of high-quality. Bolding Ram Janmabhoomi would be appropriate if that article had been more thoroughly updated, but it isn't. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, but we need to include that it was constructed on the site of a mosque destroyed by rioters - absent that background it would not be receiving the level of international coverage it is receiving. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt or Alt2, not the original blurb or Alt3 As BilledMammal says above, unless we mention the extremely controversial aspect of it being built, the reader has no idea why the story is prominent in the news at all (because it wouldn't really be that important). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It feels like the landmark event for India's descent into religious fascism. Must be why it's getting worldwide interest. I am not happy with any of the blurbs. I would suggest people who know good English and good blurb turn the following into a something usable: Ram Mandir is consecrated at the site of the demolished Babri Mosque at Ayodhya in India. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 or Alt2 These blurbs do the best job of describing the dispute. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The addition of the word - once disputed should solve the discussion and will also be aligned with the status quo. Regards,  theTigerKing   13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Once disputed" suggests it isn't disputed any more, which is clearly not the case. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb with the suggestion that we change it to "Ram Mandir is consecrated at the disputed site Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India"  ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the thing that makes this notable is the demolition of the mosque and the involvement of Indian political parties in it. Any blurb needs to mention and link to the demolition of the mosque as well. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I know hindi language so I can easily spell Mandir and Janmabhoomi, But large number of readers might not be able to do so. I feel that english translations, Temple and birthplace should be used. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done with respect to "temple". Not sure about "birthplace", because that is a matter of faith and would not make sense in context.  Sandstein   16:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Rogerson
Australian police officer. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Has citation needed tags on it but happy to revise my !vote once thats been sorted.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 11:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support think this is adequate for RD now. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerd Uecker
He managed two great German opera houses, the Semperoper in difficult times. The article was almost there, but without references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that he died late. His death became known 20 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Wish there was additional detail about his roles in the Bavarian State Opera to provide more depth, similar to what is in the article about his career at Semperoper but meets minimum standards and is referenced.  Spencer T• C 09:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a source for Munich details someone could add it. I'm on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Uncited date of birth.  Schwede 66  04:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * repeated in the body now - I'm on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Good enough for a work in progress but getting late for a "recent" death. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Piedad Córdoba
Prominent Colombian politician: deputy between 1992 and 1994, senator between 1994 to 2010, and presidential candidate in 2018. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are currently two "citation needed" templates that should be resolved before posting. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several uncited passages and even whole sections.  Schwede 66  04:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of footnote-deficient prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David L. Mills
David Mills, creator of NTP, among many other internet things. This is my first time nominating, so apologies if I missed something. BreMea (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait The article is in generally good quality, but has a couple of cns. It should be good to post once the cns are dealt with. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Well-sourced article of decent quality. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to see the lead expanded with what he's notable for, without having to add the lead too short tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Has orange maintenance tag.  Schwede 66  04:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede now has three sentences. Good enough to get the orange "short-lede" tag removed? --PFHLai (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like the intro is long enough now & that everything else is of sufficient quality. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Silent Servant
Techno DJ & music producer; died alongside The Soft Moon. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The person's birth date is uncited.  Schwede 66  04:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a reference for the birth date. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ewa Podleś
Legendary Polish ccloratura contralto, rare voice type, international performances and recordings. - There was a detailed article, but without using GSL. The focus was on the Metropolitan Opera where she appeare (too) soon, and then not for decades. Most old refs didn't work anymore. She made tons of recordings, none had a ref, but now only few are missing one. Someone with time can search further, but we could also drop the few without harm. I can't access TNYT, but it tells me off her status. There should be more reviews but I'm on vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Raymond Apple
One of Australia's highest profile rabbis and the leading spokesman for Judaism in Australia. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I placed six citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Marlena Shaw
American singer best known for "California Soul". 240D:1A:4B5:2800:292A:99E6:CD1D:8006 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs additional references.  Spencer T• C 09:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Burke Jr.
Only a few unsourced comments remain, which probably shouldn't hold up posting. I'll try to plug the holes anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Burke Jr. was the winner of two majors, the 1956 Masters Tournament, and the 1956 PGA Championship, and was that last living PGA winner in the Match Play era, and last winner of the Masters from the 50s. He was also the first known Major Winner to turn 100. Based on above, Support once fixed TheCorriynial (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be good to go now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Weiss
Mary Weiss, lead singer of The Shangri-Las. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I can't complain. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pluto Shervington
Jamaican reggae musician, singer, engineer and producer. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Article has two minor CN tags, but overall looks to be in good shape. The   Kip  22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support CN tags have been resolved, good to go. The   Kip  22:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so it does. Who could have added those. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: The Soft Moon
Thriley (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - massive amount of uncited material. The   Kip  22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It also appears that @Humanlikeu, the article's main author, was Vasquez himself (per early edit summaries), which makes me question the article's content as a whole. It seems he never received a CoI warning. The   Kip  22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Thriley (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - article was probably edited by the subject himself, double orange tags, and quite a bit of stuff is uncited.  q w 3 r t y  18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now found citations for a significant portion of his discography. Thriley (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Smart Lander for Investigating Moon
Needs some updating M asem (t) 16:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, but the history section uses future tense for past events. That should be fixed before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - Pretty tense atm. JAXA has lost contact with SLIM, we're still awaiting details... PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait to know if it's past tense or pretty tense. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait I checked over and the sourcing seems good. (not just a lack of CN tags, but nothing that should merit them as well) Orange tag is about the status... For which there are no sources. So it's impossible to actually give an answer on whether it succeeded at a soft landing or not for the time being. Once JAXA provide an answer one way or the other, it can be updated to reflect this, and then would be ready to post. Nottheking (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait status is still unclear. JAXA will hold a conference soon. We should wait for that. Harvici 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * STRONG SUPPORT - IT MADE IT!! Though the solar panels are pretty busted, still notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb wording Support in principle, but the wording of the blurb needs to reflect the solar panels/electricity issue. Nigej (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really think we need to clarify as it was considered a successful landing, but I have given an altblurb to reflect the power issues. --M asem (t) 22:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a more concise altblurb --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Congratulations! A few copyedits left to fix the future tense but that should be good, and yes I agree that the blurb can be improved. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. The   Kip  22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. If any more info needs be included in the blurb, the mission is more important than the minor issues to me, but I'd rather just add the mlre concise blurb. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability Article quality is good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a note: This is ITN/R, (indicated by the green nomination box) given it covers "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". Notability is automatically assumed for events like this. (which are incredibly rare; typically just one or two a year, especially given how, as we've seen of late, many spacecraft fail to even make it to the destination) Nottheking (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Bashkortostan protests

 * Support I'm usually familiar with the places that we highlight here but Bashkortostan is new to me. So, this item is quite encyclopædic in expanding our horizons. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Notability is debatable but as you say this is enyclopedic (I already knew of Bashkotostan but I didn't know they had such a large independence movement), and protests in Russia are certainly rare these days. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two independence movements actually, Free Idel-Ural and the Committee of Bashkir Resistance Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 09:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this a 'Judean People's Front' and 'People's Front of Judea' situation? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really, the Committee of Bashkir Resistance is a Bashkir-specific organization, while Idel-Ural is an alliance of seven ethnic groups from six different republics in the region, a successor to the Russian Civil War-era Idel-Ural State. The latter nominally included four ethnic groups but was mostly Tatar and Bashkir-dominated, but its modern incarnation appears to be more representative of the different peoples and aims at a EU-like confederation between the states. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell Russia is complex. Every time I look at a map I see 5 new cultures and breakaway states I never knew about. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Seems notable enough, plus encyclopedic as noted above. The article is a little short, but that may just be because it's covering a recent event, and that can certainly be worked on. If we want to be cautious on notability, we could wait to see if it leads to something more major. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely encyclopedic and from a place we unfortunately don't hear that much about. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 09:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Protests like this are very rare in Russia. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Significant due to the rarity of such events occurring. Article will need to be expanded but overall still ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality there's not been any updates on the protests section since 17 January, and that section is quite thin considering it's meant to be the main details of what's been happening. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Joseph2302, and if you're going to call the Bakshir government "corrupt" in Wikivoice it would be a really good idea to actually source that... Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support Protests where the Russian Government actually gives in to any demands are very rare. First time this big of a protest has happened since 2022. Lukt64 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Condition is that the article quality is improved. Lukt64 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am one of the main editors of the article, I fully acknowledge your needs which is what me and few editors are watching closely and trying to update this article considering not a lot of people are committed to it. ShadZ01 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above, fairly unusual event for Russia. The   Kip  22:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but article quality could be improved somewhat --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is 1000 protestors that notable? Stephen 03:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * actually the article clearly states it was 10,000 Kasperquickly (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the article clearly stated 1000 when I made my comment. Now it says 5000-10000. We’ve posted protests of more than 100,000, this one is trivial. Stephen 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In Russia? Yes _-_Alsor (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ: 2011–2013 Russian protests, 2017–2018 Russian protests, 2021 Russian protests, and Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) for starters. Stephen 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously huge deal Kasperquickly (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin note there's enough support to post this, but the infobox goes its own way and largely doesn't summarize the rest of the article's content. Someone needs to source and harmonize it all before I'd be comfortable posting. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been updated, clearly notable. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per updates Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready, unreferenced claims in the infobox remain. Stephen 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. Major event. In Russia, any number of protesters more than 50 is now notable. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nancy Adler
NY Times obit published 18 January. Thriley (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;Well-written with more than adequate sourcing. Kurtis (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Very well-sourced and overall of high quality. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(Sudan Removed) Ongoing Removal: Myanmar Civil War and War in Sudan
These conflicts are not being updated enough and are also not getting sufficient media coverage to warrant ongoing. Ongoing is for a constant stream of blurb-worthy events, it's not an armed conflict ticker. If we were to keep these conflicts up then I think wars of similar intensity like the Maghreb Insurgency and Somali Civil War should also be put up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar. I haven't seen much out of Sudan, but active warfare is very much so going on in Myanmar to an extensive degree still. River10000 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar given there is very much ongoing developments there. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Enough to warrant multiple blurbs? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fall of Laukkai and of the Northeast Command Headquarters on January 5, tentative ceasefire negotiated by China on January 12 (soon broken by the junta), fall of Paletwa on January 15... Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 19:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Every single individual event of these could warrant a blurb? Dubious imo PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The negotiated ceasefire would've definitely been blurb-worthy if not for the fact it was ongoing. But these were just the last few examples, many more (and more blurbworthy ones) if you go back to December, like Chinland being proclaimed as an independent state, ... Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Both of these articles are still seeing active updates in the past week, moreso than I'm used to from long-standing Ongoing articles. In fact, they are more actively updated and expanded than the main Russian invasion article is. Whether our level of activity on any of these articles is sufficient to keep promoting them, I have no clue. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We dont just want updates tk the article but also that these are new breaking events that are being added. The Ukraine/Russia war still gets daily headlines, but both of these seem far beliw tye fold with little daily coverage to warrant ongoing. M asem (t) 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both With recent developments in South Kordofan, it looks like an RSF offensive is about to begin there. Myanmar is still a warzone, with town captures happening almost daily. Lukt64 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. When/if it happens, we put it up. Also there are many more warzones than Myanmar, that doesn't automatically mean notability. ITN isn't a conflict ticker PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggestion it may be time to consider putting the Maghreb insurgency in Ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you’re talking the Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present)… there’s not even a 2022 section in there, let alone 2023/4. You sure about that? The   Kip  18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * i meant Sahel insurgency Lukt64 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which has one listed incident this month. The   Kip  21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we might as well put every armed conflict in ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for Sudan, Neutral for Myanmar, due to the war in Sudan being old news and nothing significant recently, however the Myanmar war is still very much ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are still things happening. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing items need to show ongoing news coverage, not simply that the event is continuing.<span id="Masem:1705608728852:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Just because there are events happening in the world doesn't automatically mean notability. My main point is that if we are to keep these on the main page, we might as well put every significant armed conflict up. I just want consistancy. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for Sudan, Neutral for Myanmar. Sudan was removed once already, but then put back up when the conflict picked back up again. No reason that we can't do that again. JM (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there are now 6 articles listed in the Ongoing section now that Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war has been added. Probably at least one should be removed, and given that it's the Sudan one with the least amount of updates, I think it should be that one. JM (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for Sudan as most recent updates seem to be on the diplomatic issues related to the war, rather than the war itself. Oppose on Myanmar as there's been a solid amount of recent combat-focused updates. The   Kip  20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * oppose for both. Rebels in myanmar captured another town three days ago and in sudan a lot of attention is being drawn to fighting by a world heritage sight and ethnic conflict. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar. Theres not much going in Sudan but Myanmar still has active developments. Setarip (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral for Sudan, oppose for Myanmar&mdash;The former doesn't seem to be getting too many major updates these days, but Myanmar's civil war has been experiencing quite a few developments in recent times, to the extent where I'd honestly say that the Tatmadaw is facing the greatest threat to its supremacy over Burmese politics in the 60+ years since they took over the country under Ne Win. Myanmar is still very much ongoing. Kurtis (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sudan's article has recent updates about fighting in Kordofan & Myanmar's article has recent updates about fighting throughout Myanmar. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sudan, neutral on Myanmar for same reasons as others with the same votes. Also, is the purpose of ITN ongoing just to list wars, as that's all we seem to be using it for? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing has previously listed the pandemic, the Olympics & the World Cup. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sudan Removed; Myanmar discussion still in process.  Spencer T• C 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggestion What if the displayed text "Ongoing" was made into a link to the List of ongoing armed conflicts article? (Similar to what is done for "Recent deaths" below it in the template.) Farolif (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support when a solution to a problem is found Thing is, it already makes a redirect to Current Events. Maybe we could have list of ongoing armed conflicts made into an article thats just "List of ongoing conflicts" that includes protests and strikes. Lukt64 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that or something similar was proposed and rejected. Ongoing is not just for ongoing conflicts, it just happens that ongoing conflicts are usually all that is listed there, but previously the COVID-19 pandemic was listed for a long time. JM (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on the List of ongoing armed conflicts article talk page. This is an issue that should be discussed there. Lukt64 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition, I also added a "Major conlicts" section in the ongoing events to Portal:Current_events/Sidebar Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any major additions to critical parts of the CE portal more than likely need consensus to add. GWA's removed it anyways. The   Kip  01:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is also used for major sports events (like FIFA, Olympics), was used for COVID, etc; i.e., it is not just a war-ticker. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: César Suárez
Ecuadorian prosecutor investigating TC Televisión newsroom takeover. Shot dead by hitmen. Article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support everything seems well-sourced. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Shawnacy Barber
world champion pole vaulter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support based on article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Achievements in the body and infobox are unreferenced. Stephen 23:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Dejan Milojević
Assistant coach for the Golden State Warriors. Coached Jokic in Euro League, Article looks good. - Rockin  Jack  18  20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 18 paragraphs that end without a reference. Stephen 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article does not look good. Per Stephen. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Still quite a bit footnote-deficient prose. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan
Ainty Painty (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Totally irrelevant and insignificant from ITN's point of view. Fahads1982 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – totally relevant and significant from ITN's point of view. It represents an expansion of existing tensions around Iran and in the Middle East. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is a notable increase in tensions, and the article is of reasonable quality for ITN --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Attack by Iran on foreign (Pakistani) soil leading to a flare-up of tensions between the two countries in the context of the Balochistan conflict, definitely ITN material. The blurb could mention that it was the IRGC (Sepah) that was responsible, rather than the Iranian army (Artesh), as Iran maintains two parallel armies (with separate navies, air forces, etc.). Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support resulted in the recall of an ambassador, seems significant enough. JM (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Significant event with global coverage. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Could mention that Iran has attacked Iraq, Pakistan and Syria in the last couple of days, and link 2024 Erbil attack as well. Stephen 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was not done in isolation from other recent Iranian strikes. JM (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there sources connecting these attacks? The ones in Iraq and Syria are allegedly related to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, while the Pakistan one is part of the Balochistan conflict. While they all happened relatively recently, it might be OR to connect them all as part of the same blurb. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose we should wait till further escalation Iran is indirectly attacking Pakistan, it is directly attacking the terrorists(Jaish-ud-Adl) Even though Pakistan's government said  'it was a breach of their airspace', I think this matter would not escalte with Israel-Hamas was going on. So, I say it is not ITN worthy until the matter escalates Harvici 04:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support; the situation has now escalated, with Pakistan launching retaliatory strikes. The proposed blurb may need to be updated, though. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support added Alt Blurb II, since Ainty Painty nominated Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar for ITN , since both are related , I think Alt Blurb II would be the best to be posted on ITN. Harvici 07:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support with amended blurb to include the Pakistani retaliatory airstrikes vide Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pakistan retaliatory strikes article needs work before being featured. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added Alt Blurb IV to mention the strikes in Iraq and Syria. Other blurb states that these strikes are "against Pakistan, and Iraq and Syria", which would imply that they were targetted at the UN-recognised governments of these countries, which Iran strongly denies. Much better to say 'in', same with the Houthi conflict. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Precarious 's Alt Blurb IV, but we can edit the second sentence from 'In response, Pakistan airstrikes several targets in Iran' to 'In response, Pakistan Air Force launches Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar, leaving 7 dead. Harvici 12:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer a simpler headline along the lines of Alt Burb III, without going into too much details; the articles are there to provide context. If we mention Iran’s targeting of Jaish-ul-Adl, then by extension we’d also have to mention Pakistan’s targeting of Baluch insurgents bases, and the blurb will get too long. That’s besides the fact, of course, that both Iran and Pakistan have not alluded to any militant deaths as of yet (on their own side) and have only acknowledged civilian casualties.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt3 - definitely a notable event that highlights the rise of tensions in the Middle East ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * support alt3 only.  nableezy  - 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted alt3 with the strong support above. I tweaked the link placement slightly to avoid MOS:EGG and removed an unnecessary comma. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar is probably still not quite at the level it should be for the front page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked each article before posting. That one is indeed short, especially after some recent paring back, but nevertheless it is comprehensive and fully cited. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Lloyd
British Labour MP. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, the article looks good now . I had a little misunderstanding earlier
 * Support, the article looks in great shape. @User:Harvici, the DoB and the Trafford Council job are both sourced in the body (cites 9 and 8 respectively). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support LGTM. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article appears well sourced Dantus21 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well sourced and in good shape.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing nomination: 2024 missile strikes in Yemen
This is likely to go on even after the blurb rolls off. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional support/Wait if they do something akin to the 12th, or if the Houthis retaliate, definitely support. If not, insignificant. The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is the involvement of Houthi in Israel - Hamas war; there is no need to include it in ongoing unitl it escalates and becomes Ansar Allah vs USA (etc), then it can be ongoing worthy Harvici 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - I said this in the original nom as well, but I think we should first wait and see if the situation actually escalates further into a more long-term conflict before deciding on whether or not to put it in Ongoing. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until further escalation, Conditional Support on notability if it does escalate. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggestion – Add "(Houthi involvement)" to the Israel-Hamas War ongoing. Having a secondary article in ongoing can be nice, as we see with the Russian invasion timeline. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By far the best proposal! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Nice suggestion but if the matter escalates, this can change. Harvici 16:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Mable's idea. By far the best solution to including the matter of the Houthis. River10000 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a concise proposal until further escalation. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for now, seems reasonable enough. JM (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is a great solve Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Good idea! We could certainly keep it like that until anything major happens. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, very good idea. Lukt64 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I feel like there's a consensus to do these parentheses now.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed by Maple. The   Kip  20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose While the initial escalation by the Houthis was made in relation to the Israel-Hamas war, multiple reliable sources indicate that the Houthi attacks have become indiscriminate, targeting vessels with no discernible connection to Israel. No source that I am aware of currently makes the strong statement that the ongoing fighting between the US/UK and the Houthis is a direct part of the Israel-Hamas war. I think lumping them together as the same "ongoing" is not defensible with reliable sources. eyal (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article in question is subject to a proposed move, so I wonder that if it ends up getting moved to Red Sea crisis that it should be un-bracketed and listed separately. JM (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the Supports on an idea I had forgotten I posted, haha. Feels very good. Yes, I expect the setup will change shortly, and Red Sea Crisis sounds likely to work as a separate Ongoing too. Our coverage evolves faster than we can make decisions. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as this is an ongoing conflict now, but I would suggest a broader focus on the conflict than just the missile strikes. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted 's suggestion of adding (Houthi involvement) as there is consensus for it. That brings me to the interesting issue of credits, though, with having nominated 2024 missile strikes in Yemen, but a different article being posted that Interstellarity has never edited. If that's ok with you, Interstellarity, I hand out credits to two other editors instead who I have added to this nomination. If there are diverging ideas on how to handle the credits, please discuss and ping me when a resolution has been reached.  Schwede  66  22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Although it came out of the original nomination, it was an altogether different article by a different nominator that got consensus to post. JM (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you please clarify how you determined that consensus was reached (WP:DETCON)? I raise the concern that this decision violates WP:VER, and so far this point has gone unaddressed. eyal (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NYT says [Houthi] has claimed it is acting in response to the Israeli military response in the Gaza Strip. I don't think the fact that the attacks became indiscriminate means it's not a part of the war (plus NYT reports it as part of the war) Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with the fact that it kinda violates WP:VER, I'm thinking of changing my vote but it's hard to word it as on the one hand it was absolutely a reaction to the Israel-Hamas war, on the other hand Houtis are kinda doing their own thing now despite claiming it's about Israel, so if there's an elegant solution that wraps up all of this I'd be interested. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not convinced that this is a problem, given that there's an active proposal to change the article title to Red Sea crisis, that could be the solution you're looking for. It would mean that the article is no longer directly subordinate to the Israel-Hamas war and therefore would no longer be bracketed, while also maintaining that it's otherwise the same article which is listed as Ongoing. JM (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Anything that improves upon my nomination helps out a lot. Interstellarity (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding the Red Sea crisis to Ongoing, though oppose doing so as a parenthetical add-on to Israel–Hamas war, per Eyal 3400. DecafPotato (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Comorian presidential election
Was going to nominate this on the day of the election, but soon realized that election results weren't out yet. Added an altblurb in case weight should be given to the controversies that erupted after the election, not sure though since international observers have commented on the election and did not condemn it for alleged irregularities. Some work may still need to be done before posting, but the aftermath section has an acceptable amount of prose in my opinion and the material seems to be well-sourced. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt1 looks fine. Every paragraph ends with a citation except the last sentence of one, I'm assuming the citations at the end of each paragraph are meant to give a source for the whole paragraph. Table is cited. Given the disputed results, Alt1 is better in my opinion. JM (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support ALT1, albeit the article feels a tad short. The   Kip  22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb or Alt2, oppose Alt1 Since international observers called this a free & fair election, I think it’s probably inappropriate to label this a disputed election without going into more details. What seems more appropriate to me is noting that the presidential election had a 16% turnout because it was boycotted by some opposition candidates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment If there is consensus that the article is up to shape but not consensus for a particular blurb variant, I recommend using the short and to-the-point original blurb until a clearer consensus emerges regarding how to describe the controversies surrounding the election. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support ALT1 the article looks fine and is listed in WP:ITN/R, we should definetly post it. Harvici 07:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Adapted blurb version.  Spencer T• C 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Schickele (P.D.Q. Bach)
Better known under his pseudonym P.D.Q. Bach, so I think we should include it as parenthetical in the Recent deaths entry Smurrayinchester 12:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has plenty of sources, including for the death. Einsof (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Although I am sad to see him go, there are a few sources that could use some citations before posting but overall, it looks alright. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I’m concerned about the uncited sentence about his repertory. Support This looks good enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claire Fagin
Needs a little bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This looks okay now. Secretlondon (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Intro mentions that she was a consultant but does not mention this in the article body. It also mentions "She was an early advocate of family-centered care, with major contributions to psychiatric nursing, nursing education and geriatric care, which were underlined with a strong belief in the power of the activist consumer." but outside of mentioning her doctoral dissertation has no other detail about her research contributions.  Spencer T• C 15:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WRT her research, I added info about a research position that she held in the 1950s & that she co-authored an analysis in 2022 suggesting that the cause of burnout among health care workers during the pandemic was inadequate hospital staffing. WRT being a consultant, I added that she was an advisor to the WHO. However, that didn’t seem important enough for the intro, so I removed the part about her being a consultant from the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Sergio Sebastiani
A cardinal and diplomat, article is also good Harvici 10:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's an unsourced paragraph and a cn tag. DoB unsourced as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The death is sourced and the quality is good enough. Putting it on the main page may encourage new editors to source other parts of the article. Einsof (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not good yet: some lines and paras are unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: José Agustín
Noted Mexican writer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bibliography and the filmography are missing some sources, the life and career section has some unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The death is sourced, the article quality is fine, and it is not nominated for deletion. Those are the three criteria for posting, per WP:ITNRD. Einsof (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article should be fully sourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 US Republican presidential primaries
I know, I can see the incoming comments already. "Not a US Politics ticker", "Needs international significance", etc., but hear me out. This is an item that, like it or not, is getting way more public and media attention than most blurbs that have been put up. The Iowa caucus is front-page news on every major outlet. I think while Haley, DeSantis, and Trump continue to face each other off, it's useful to the general reader to link this. Once the candidate pool thins and a presumptive nominee is established, we can take it off. In any case, it's worth considering. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We post the election of the president. Trump is going to be the nominee without any doubt unless the Supreme Court deems him ineligible to run. This result in Iowa was clearly expected.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Ongoing or Weak oppose, it is of some interest to the general reader (given US influence and the potential consequences of the election) but highlighting Iowa in particular doesn't bring too much. In any case, there isn't much suspense and Trump will likely be nominated, so not that interesting either. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The syntax must've changed because I put ongoing as 'yes'. This is an ongoing nom PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it wasn't an ongoing nom when I replied. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we do not cover the run ups to any election, and in the cade if the Republican caucuses, it's pretty much assured who's going to win.<span id="Masem:1705418306808:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose We'll have primaries/caucuses going on the next few months, but none of them (either individually or collectively) have the significance of the general election in November (which is INT/R). rawmustard (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose totally irrelevant and insignificant from ITN's point of view. We are going to post only the presidential election. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest snow close This is a ridiculous nomination, because, as the nominator has observed, this is not a US politics ticker. In case anyone needs reminding, Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. People in every other country would never dream of nominating pre-election party politics as an ITN. Just because it happened in the US doesn't make it more special. Chrisclear (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; you've made your point in every other U.S.-related nom you've opposed for this reason. ITN/C is not your soapbox. Oppose the nom and move on. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't quite understand your comment, I opposed the nomination and moved on - just as you suggested. The only reason I am back here is because of your strange comment. Chrisclear (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Narges Mohammadi
John Cummings (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article not updated, blurb unclear about whether the sentence has been extended from an original 12 years or by a further 12 years. Neutral for now on significance. JM (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Blurb is potentially misleading as she is only sentenced to an additional 15 months. We did not post similar news when Hong Kong pro-democracy activists like Joshua Wong received additional sentences. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - little international significance. Banedon (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose little significance Setarip (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose insignificant The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insignificant as per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Shih Ming-teh
Taiwanese activist, also known as "Taiwan's Nelson Mandela". NoonIcarus (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Was thinking of nominating this, but oppose on quality. Lots of cn tags, and unsourced sections. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Too much unsourced prose. --PFHLai (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Primetime Emmy Awards
Probably some more updates to the ceremony itself but the article is well-established before tonight. M asem (t) 03:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support pending sources for the presenters (typically pulled from the YouTube clips, which should be added overnight), unless accepting the broadcast as a primary source is allowed. Images will also probably be added but shouldn't cause issues. (Note: I've been fairly involved in the article.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Live blogs from RSes (which sites like Variety and Deadline run) should also work. Also, while I did not watch, I would expect an "in memorandum" section if that was part of the show. M asem (t) 04:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added in references for all of the presenters. There are also references for the list of winners (somehow that got missed, whoops), the total wins by program and network, and the In Memoriam section. I'm pretty confident everything is now sourced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per RunningTiger123, pending sources for presenters ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too many tables conmpared to the one section of text, and way too many images that violate WP:NOTGALLERY. Until this article meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, it should not be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is written in the same format and approach of past Emmy articles as well as other major entertainment awards like the Oscars. Tables for the awards (winners and noms) and (free) images of the winners. This complaint doesn't nake sense.<span id="Masem:1705427028528:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So the "other stuff exists".argument wins? Nigej (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me like tables are the best way of presenting information like 75th Primetime Emmy Awards. That's info that is essential to the article but reading it in prose would be tiresome. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the bloated tables in #Nominations and wins by program and #Nominations by network, which verge on trivial. For example, do Max's two nominations really warrant mentioning in the article? Or could we sum up all of that with a sentence like "HBO led all networks with 43 major award nominations, followed by Netflix with 23 and Apple TV+ with 17? (Or at the very least, could we collapse those tables by default?)
 * All that said—if this is the common format across Emmys articles, there's a larger discussion to be had somewhere else and this shouldn't be a barrier to ITN promotion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So the "other stuff exists" argument does win. Nice to know. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is an argument to avoid in deletion nominations... it's not a content policy, let alone an issue at ITN. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tables are fine. Unsourced tables are not. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I know all that, which is why I was surprised that you and Masem are using the "other stuff" argument, which doesn't seem to have any basis in policy/guidelines. Nigej (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that they were not making an "other stuff" argument. You mentioned it, then turned it on its head, and are now complaining about it. I do not think you do "know all that", but it's time to drop it anyway. Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be added that the tables are now sourced, to demonstrate that this type of counting is not original research here. M asem (t) 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently not up to the required standard. Plenty of unreferenced material. Nigej (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The prose is mostly OK, but there's a crapload of tables and lists without any sources. Do we actually need some of this fancruft, though? A lot of it (i.e. the "Nominations and Wins by program" tables) could probably be nuked without any loss to the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Only as a comment, those have been standard across many Award articles, and there is usually discussion in the RSes about which programs and networks led nominations and/or wins (which I know exist for this year as well) but those sources don't typically break up that information to the degree we present. In other words, about half the entire in those tables can be shown to be reported in a manner by RSes (the top halves) but not the other 50%, so those tables are mostly filling out the rest.<span id="Masem:1705434575482:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, these tables are simply WP:CALC derivations made by counting up wins or nominations. What still probably be done is add a bit of prose with sources to say so-and-so led the nominations / wins.<span id="Masem:1705435174329:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above where editors indicate that they are planning to base the article on blogs, YouTube and their own calculations. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Live blogs from RSes are RSes. Once notability has been passed, YouTube clips of the actual event published by the event holders are RSes. And there is allowed own-calculations per WP:CALC, as long as they are simple (as this is).<span id="Masem:1705497352920:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem's arguments, I don't see anything in especially poor shape. The   Kip  20:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support If this is the normal format, then the quality seems good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced tables that go beyond simple WP:CALC. Collating information to find out a program had 20+ nominations is very error prone. Better to be reliably sourced (which also rules out any doubt of it being some WP:OR fancruft).—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The nominee counts have been in these articles (including other awards) and have been accepted without the need for sourcing in the past. There's almost no error involved if one takes the nominee list into a text editor and does appropriate searching to count up instances. Completely allowed under CALC. Will also add that while full tables cannot be had from the sourced, the sources at the time of nomination news do look at the top 3-5 eg <span id="Masem:1705930060086:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Stale Posting an election, moon landing or accession a week late isn't that bad, because these things have lasting impact, but award show glory is fleeting. These tables now mostly interest Emmy trivia buffs rather than water-cooler talkers, I think, and they know where to find them. Maybe next year. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Laybutt
Australian soccer player. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Honors section needs citations, rest is short but adequate for RD. The   Kip  18:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose For a man notable for being a soccer player, the "Playing career" section is ridiculously thin. Nigej (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A stubby wikibio (under 280 words of prose) in need of better sourcing (half of the Early life and career section is unreferenced, so is the entire Honours section). --PFHLai (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Real Madrid wins Supercopa de España
One of the biggest rivalry in football, and big victory for Real Madrid Harvici 05:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason The Boat Race or the Army-Navy game are not in ITN. The La Liga championship is already posted to ITN. Doesn't matter if it's a rivalry or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor tournament only featuring 4 teams. Technically this is not like The Boat Race or the Army-Navy Game, as those are fixed teams. But still not major enough for ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose pretty much an exhibition tournament, hence it was hosted in Saudi Arabia not in Spain. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on precedent that we didn't run the 2023 FA Community Shield and also because its not listed on WP:ITNR.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is by any sensible metric a bigger and more significant sport event than the 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship, but we shouldn't overflood ITN with too many football stories when we already have La Liga on ITN/R.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. Nothing like significant enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per pretty much all above. Not significant enough. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose association football cup series like these generally get way less coverage than their league equivalents, and this is also the case here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Inauguration of Arévalo in Guatemala
Extremely important occurrence in Central America, following months of obstruction from the establishment in Guatemala. Moved to Jan 15th since the inauguration occurred after midnight. Blurbs can be adjusted as seen fit. River10000 08:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Iffy - I could go either way on this. On one hand the multiple attempts to block this from happening makes it notable, on the other hand we rarely post inaugurations of presidents, only elections (I don't know if we posted the 2023 election). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose – One-line update. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an entire article's worth of updates. —Cryptic 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why in the world is this not wikilinked in this nomination or anywhere in article. I support this being featured if the election itself hadn't been. I will still say that Arévalo's article needs work too. Would it be alright if we change the original nomination template to propose the inauguration article instead? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been changed now. I wasn't aware of the article either tbh. River10000 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article about the inauguration itself should also be linked to in the blurb if this gets posted, as Arévalo's article has very limited information (essentially just one line). Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been changed. River10000 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support considerably more significant than some rich kid taking over mommy’s job in Denmark.  nableezy  - 15:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) - support alt as that’s the reason this is significant.  nableezy  -  22:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * An admin closed your thread in that discussion exactly because of this behavior, I’d suggest you strike the comment and quit it. The   Kip  17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * i suggest you not repeat the badgering of people who have opinions you dislike.  nableezy  - 21:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this again. Enough of the battleground behaviour already. JM (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ I am not looking to engage with you anywhere, is there a reason you are incapable of leaving me alone?  nableezy  - 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to engage with you either. If you stopped with the battleground behaviour and incivility then I wouldnt feel the need to call it out. You are the only person at ITN who is behaving like this. Like I said, there is no reason for you to be uncivil toward me, there is no reason for you to answer me if you don't want to, and I'm not just going to let your incivility toward other editors here stand. JM (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to engage with you either. then stop or I’ll ask that you be made to.  nableezy  - 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your sentiment, ITN isn't an appropriate place to say this. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They have four separate editors telling them to stop such behaviour within the last 24 hours just on this page. If anyone's going to be made to stop, it's likely going to be them. JM (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can add a fifth one here. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you all don’t like how I’m judging significance you can point to some overriding policy on it. I have not been uncivil in the slightest, and the repeated badgering of my !vote is getting beyond annoying. You don’t like my vote? Ah well, I don’t like lots of things on the internet.  nableezy  - 22:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point made in your vote, but it is the wording that is unnecessarily rude and not really productive for the discussion. Also, raising an objection one time about a comment's wording isn't badgering, that would be going under every comment and repeatedly demanding you to change your wording. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rude to who? Not liking an opinion isn’t the basis for a complaint, especially by a user like JM2023 or whatever their username is having been annoying me across a range of pages, including my own user talk. Anyway, my !vote is that this is more significant than the non story of somebody inheriting a job that we currently feature, so I support its inclusion. If somebody has a problem with that, oh well.  nableezy  - 22:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose The efforts to stop it were/are important, but the fact it ultimately went through as planned moreso makes this a “business as usual” story rather than something truly notable. The   Kip  17:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment did we cover the election? If so, I oppose this nomination. JM (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Oppose as the election was indeed posted. JM (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support If there's a mention that he was sworn-in following a delay by the country's congress and several legal attempts to overturn his election. The threats of his win being overturned/his delay had received coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * /August 2023, The election was posted. Stephen 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - this is more important and interesting than the coronation of a new monarch in Denmark, in my opinion, but also, the fact that the inauguration was significantly delayed makes it notable, even though we covered the election. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but the article could benefit from an improvement in quality --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, pretty rare for an inauguration to be notable separately from the election, but the surrounding context (especially the fact that the inauguration wasn't at all guaranteed to happen smoothly, if at all) definitely make this one notable. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted the election results and I believe some of the surrounding protests? Not without noteworthiness, but this event has been inevitable for a month since the Constitutional Court ruled the election results were valid. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The protests never ended up getting posted. The election itself was but never the attempts to cancel it after.
 * River10000 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I'd like to see more context in the context section of the article (especially if altblurb is used), but given said context, this is clearly significant enough to post. Banedon (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Election was already posted and we don't usually post inaugurations. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb The attempts to block Arévalo’s inauguration make it ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didnt post US Inaugurations Setarip (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on quality and notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb We don't normally post presidential inaugurations. But this case is totally different and its notoriety is easily visible and understandable by reading the news and articles about Arévalo and his inauguration. The quality of the inauguration article could be better, but it's just enough for it to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin note this has enough support to be posted, both in the quality and number of !votes, but I'm not seeing any details in the article about the "multiple attempts to cancel his inauguration". I've read the news and know that political opponents were organizing in a last-ditch effort to delay and weaken Arévalo's presidency (notably not cancel/prevent, at least from what I've seen). Why isn't any of that info included? The altblurb could also be tweaked to avoid repeating forms of the word inauguration. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and added the word obstruct instead. Debatably fits better. Also will add context about election canceling to the article asap. (I've now added a bit more context from the 2023 guatemalan election page)
 * River10000 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Usually the inauguration is a formality and not worth posting, but in this case there was enough going on to make it doubtful that the inauguration would happen. The Inauguration of Bernardo Arévalo article now also has a section explaining the context. Ucucha (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt Blurb. I agree that "we usually don't post inaugurations", but there usually aren't attempts to not have them. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Munawwar Rana
Famous Indian urdu poet Harvici 09:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be well referenced. Though it doesn't include the typical section on his notable works. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing : 2024 Ecuadorian conflict

 * Oppose Last news update to article was on the 11th, there doesn't seem to be that much coverage or activity of this for a sustained ongoing. --M asem (t) 23:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait If important news come out of the country, it would be good to have it, but not every low-intensity conflict needs to be Ongoing by default. As much as it looks like it, it isn't a "current wars" ticker. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it should be put in the secondary Ongoing tier which is visible in Portal:Current events. I don't know the process for that though. JM (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Although now that I look at it, Ecuadorian security crisis covering 2020-present is already there. JM (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - per @Chaotic Enby. If situation continues to deteriorate after a few days, then we can put it up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per CE. The   Kip  17:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the conflict in Equador is really an extension of the Mexican drug war which might be a better ongoing candidate. Sadly the utter collapse of these countries has made routine the assassination of judges, the slaughter of children, the beheading of villages, such that there aren't regular updates of the savage barbarism there. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I genuinely think you could tone down your wording a little bit when saying things like savage barbarism, especially since it's not the first time you use this kind of language to describe Latin Americans. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else to describe a continent that has 8% of the world population but 33% of the murder and literally celebrates death except as irredeemably violent and depraved. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between honoring and remembering the deceased and celebrating death itself. Please stop with these racist generalizations based on gross cultural misunderstandings. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Such a xenophobe and ignorant comment. Let me guess where you're from... Bedivere (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No point in responding, the user is blocked. But what we also don't need is anything like let me guess where you're from in response. JM (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning toward support There are several new developments, including the death of the prosecutor probing the TV studio attack, and 43 prisoners escaping as reported by Reuters. There is just so much going on in "ongoing" right now that this is considered relatively low-intensity. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support was considering a nom of this myself This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor quality of recent updates (single sentence proseline items).  Spencer T• C 03:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 El Carmen de Atrato landslide
Ainty Painty (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose At this point in time, we don’t have a viable article. Also note that it happened in the Chocó Department; there is no city of that name and the blurb is thus wrong.  Schwede 66  17:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Article has been created and switched in above. Stephen 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and nomination amendment originally nominated article 2024 Chocó landslide was merged into El Carmen de Atrato landslide. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now merged both into 2024 El Carmen de Atrato landslide after page was moved again. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is 1 sentence. However, the Spanish and Portuguese articles are much longer, so if anyone wants to translate one or both of those, the quality issues will be resolved. JM (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality. Target article shouldn't even be in the mainspace yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as it’s a stub. The   Kip  03:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stale PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Pingdingshan mining accident
Ainty Painty (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Article is absolutely not ready. Incident bares no significance either and does not differ from any past mining incidents recently. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb Abcmaxx (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as article is far too short for main page. The   Kip  17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lev Rubinstein
Russian poet of great merit, one of the founders of Moscow conceptualism, political/opinion journalist, vocal opponent of the war against Ukraine. Died after a traffic collision some days ago. Had an acclaimed book in English, many books in other languages. Trepang2 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: the article looks in decent shape, although we might need to integrate a few more sources. Oltrepier (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support LGTM. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Danish royal succession
Happening today at 1300 GMT. Natg 19 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Long live Frederik X! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Long live the King! Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until he formally ascends, otherwise support altblurb - Article quality is sufficient for it to be posted. Tofusaurus (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Frederik has not yet ascended as King (in about two hours as planned) and his article needs to be worked on: perhaps expand the content and, above all, that the information it have is referenced. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until 2:00 PM Danish time (when he is formally going to succeed his mother). Otherwise, support especially because the target article already looks good to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Should have done it right now (14:15 CEST). Need to wait for official confirmation. Gust Justice (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - all's good with the articles, formal accession is done. No need to wait much longer. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good and he has ascended to the throne. Should we also link Abdication of Margrethe II in the blurb? - az pineapple  &#124; T/C 13:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - too much uncited material in article. Polyamorph (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - per above. Nigej (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition, the dozen+ refs on that one statement in the Scientific support section is overkill. When there are that many sources to one sentence, that is a possible symptom of OR being pushed. --M asem (t) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support gaining major coverage around the world. Long live King Frederik X! Though I agree the abdication article should be linked and perhaps worded "following her abdication" rather than "after her abdication". Richiepip (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * How is this ITNR? Elections of heads of state/government are ITNR. Oppose on significance, some lady quit her "job" and her son has taken over. Whopdee doo.  nableezy  - 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A new head of state taking over is significant whether by election or inheritance. Richiepip (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It isnt ITNR if not by election, and it isnt significant if they have nothing significant about their powers.  nableezy  - 16:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're totally wrong on that one. Per WP:ITNELECTIONS: Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election. We just had the succession in Kuwait, and it was considered ITN/R because the Emir of Kuwait is the highest executive authority in that country. While this change isn't ITN/R, it's still significant because it's a change of monarch and it's all over the news. JM (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s because the emir of Kuwait administers the executive. Which isn’t the case for the king of Denmark. Also, doesn’t appear to be all over the news that I read. Not on the front page of the New York Times, Washington post or Wall Street journal or Chicago tribune.  nableezy  - 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You said only changes by election are ITN/R, which was wrong. I am aware that the difference between Kuwait's emir and Denmark's king is executive power, which is exactly what I said in the two sentences right after the green quote. And fortunately, we at ITN are not limited to the front pages of a few major American newspapers; many here are also wary of systemic bias toward American perpsectives. JM (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The line you quoted is about Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election. The line you quoted has literally nothing to do with a nomination for somebody who does not administer the executive. As far as not limited to a few major American newspapers, sure, but there has been no evidence offered that it's all over the news, and my comment was a refutation of that. But kindly badger somebody else, I dont find this to be a particularly fruitful exchange.  nableezy  - 19:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're trying to say here. For the second time, you said that changes in head of state are not ITN/R unless by election, I said that changes of head of state without election are ITN/R if the head of state is the the supreme executive authority, using that quoted section. I don't know why your response to that is to tell me that my quoted section has "nothing to do with a nomination for someboy who does not administer the executive" when I never said that it did in the first place. You're disputing something that I never said. JM (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please badger somebody else.  nableezy  - 19:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I started writing my comment before you accused me of "badgering" and so didn't see your accusation until after I published. Regardless, you don't need to respond, and if anything, I'm being badgered considering you're arguing with me about something I never said in the first place. Anyway, to respond to the second half of your comment that you added after the fact: using a few American front pages does not show that it's not "all over the news". I don't have to re-prove it, because the nominator provided four different sources from four different American and British top publications; that means it is indeed all over the news. JM (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those are well past the front page. But now that you know I’d like you to stop badgering me, can you stop plz? Thanks in advance.  nableezy  - 20:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether they're on the front page or not. But just from a quick check of CNN and the Guardian, it's at the top of both home pages in the "headlines" section of both. I find it interesting that you consider me responding to you "badgering", but not you responding to me. You can't honestly expect me to stop responding to your arguments just because you call it badgering despite doing the same thing. JM (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, you see who's !vote you're replying to right? The only place I see it on CNN's homepage is in its list of headlines, below Chiefs win, Coach Andy Reid’s mustache freezes and Taylor Swift bundles up in 4th-coldest game in NFL history. Guess Reid's mustache freezing is a bigger story.  nableezy  - 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So it is at the top of the homepage under headlines, as I said. i.e., front page. So there is absolutely no reason for you to argue with me, since you apparently agree with me. Anyway, what's the policy that says an editor responding to an editor under the latter editor's !vote can be said to "badger" but the latter editor replying to the former editor's replies cannot be said to "badger"? JM (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing good that can come from either of you continuing this back and forth. What's said is said, and what isn't said probably isn't worth saying. So probably a good time to chill. Polyamorph (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SEALIONING  nableezy  - 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is abosutely no POV-pushing from me here at all. I agreed with Polyamorph that there was nothing more to say and that this was detrimental, but I just have to answer this allegation, because really? Accusing me of POV-pushing and bad faith, because why, I told you the guidelines and that this was on the front page? There's no POV to even take here. Come on. JM (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please please please annoy somebody else? Pretty please?  nableezy  - 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh... you're being disruptive at this point. If it annoys you that I respond to your baseless allegations of POV-pushing and bad faith, then don't make baseless allegations of POV-pushing and bad faith. JM (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * lol needs that last word on somebody else’s !vote in a nomination that’s already posted. Go ahead, have at it.  nableezy  - 04:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality and significance (specifically, phenomenally bad writing, and per Nableezy).  ——Serial  15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Gud bevare kongen! -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And additionally that MOS:SANDWICH in "Personal interests" should be resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability because while this is not ITN/R it's still a significant event. But, per above, the article is not ready due to quality. JM (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think that the abdication should be the linked article, so I've proposed and support Altblurb II; the abdication article is already of sufficient quality, so any quality concerns I had are moot, and the change in target article would also alleviate all above quality concerns by others if their support is changed to Alt2. JM (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose only ceremonial role, and we pulled the French PM change which was a much more meaningful change. Royal news is essentially no more than celebrity news in the modern world and has no real impact at all as their roles are completely redundant. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's much, much more than just celebrity news. I agree we should've posted the French PM, why not both? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it much much more? A YouTuber, multinational company CEO or Instagram influencer has more influence on the world Abcmaxx (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - We posted separately the ascension and coronation of Charles and Camilla. This is, in some ways, both an ascension and coronation for the Danish Realm, and so highly significant. Wide media coverage, as has been pointed out. In addition, I also think it's crucial that we also include Queen Mary in the blurb. Her ascension has been reported in its own right for her Australian roots (eg. SMH, CNN, NYT, BBC), but in any case her ascension to queen consort is significant enough to report on ITN. JMonkey2006 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We posted separately the ascension and coronation of Charles and Camilla and that was a mistake. I understand that some people love monarchies for some reason, but Wikipedia shouldn't have. It was heavily inappropriate (and I felt bad for all the British citizens who are not monarchists but had to be constantly reminded of the monarchy). --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt2: Notable event, and iirc, when her abdication was first announced, there was consensus to wait until Jan 14. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You indeed RC. JM (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, good point. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 the article on Margrethe's abdication is in great condition. So if that is the article we could put in bold highlighted, this nomination is ready to be posted. It's very important to know about monarchies before questioning the notability of an abdication and the ascension of a crown prince/princess to the throne. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You get born in the right order at the right time and by this mere fact irrelevant of merit or anything else one becomes a monarch. That is all there is to it and it's hard not to question its notability. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a head of state, a person ostensibly considered sovereign, and it's the second abdication in this country ever, and the first in nearly 1,000 years. Seems notable enough, even when the person has little practical power. JM (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If a change in the French PM isn’t notable enough for ITN, I normally wouldn’t consider a change in a ceremonial monarchy notable enough for ITN. However, the 1st abdication in Denmark in nearly 1,000 years would make this more notable than most changes in a ceremonial monarchy. That should be noted in the blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Late oppose A poorly written article that fails to meet any level of importance or readability for the average Wikipedia user Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the blurbed article (the abdication article)? JM (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am, sorry if I put this in the wrong place. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really not seeing how this is poorly written and unreadable. What specifically is the issue? JM (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose - I might be in the minority here, but the king of Denmark has no real power, so it's silly to blurb this. I'm not convinced that it matters enough to warrant posting. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support. Change in head of state. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Romuald Twardowski
Prolific Polish composer in many genres from opera to choral works for Catholic and Orthodox church. Most of the article was there but needed references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Alec Musser
American actor. Needs a lot of work. Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joyce Randolph
American actress. Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Supportseems ready enough-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernard Descôteaux
Canadian journalist. Article needs some work. I will work on this later tonight unless someone gets to it before me. Basic edits done. Article has shaped into a basic-start class biography.Ktin (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Shales
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Taiwanese presidential election

 * Strong support. Very significant. 64.231.205.137 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - Major implications for region. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, preferably with mention of his support for Taiwanese independence The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * bit weird to include policy proposals on election blurbs PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely - that starts getting into POV (even in this case, Taiwan's independence would be desirable for most of the rest of the world, that's still a POV)<span id="Masem:1705166123856:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I believe he doesn't support an actual declaration of independence, but rather strongly asserting Taiwan's sovereignty from PR China. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on quality but ideally the section move proposal should be dealt with soon, otherwise, nothing problematic stands out. ITN/R so no question about notability, agree that the mention of Taiwanese independence support (Altblurb II) should be added for context. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 16:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: No preference on blurb/altblurb. If someone wants to include the mention of his independence support, please provide an altblurb. I'm leaning oppose on that mention for now, however. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I was surprised it wasn't already listed. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, with strong preference for main blurb over altblurb per WP:COMMONNAME, and "President of Taiwan" as by far the most widely used term in media coverage. Leaning oppose of Taiwan independence mention for WP:NPOV, as even the definition of Taiwan independence is heavily contested. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support sufficient quality is present. Added Altblurb II for mention of Taiwanese independence support; I support Altblurb II and I don't think it's NPOV to mention that in the blurb. JM (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb II; oppose other blurbs. It would be POV were this ITN entry to endorse or oppose Taiwanese independence, but not only is it not POV to state his position on the issue, but it would be missing important context on the significance of this news item to not do so. —Lowellian (reply) 21:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant regional news with global implications.  Mel ma nn   22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support INTR and article is in good shape Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above Hungry403 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support with original blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Are we leaving out the legislative election? The Kuomintang won one more seat than the DPP. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can propose an altblurb for that if that's what you want. It would probably be pretty long. JM (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to leave out the legislative election in the blurb. Though significant for Taiwan, major international headlines including the New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, etc. focused on the presidential race, particularly on the front page. Butterdiplomat (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The result of legislative election is a clear indicator showing that the public opinion of Taiwanese is very unsteady, a large portion of electors prefer parties seeking less conflicted relationships with PRC (although not necessarily a causation). This should not be ignored or even oversimplified as "Taiwanese prefer independence". Oppose altblurb II and support altlurb before new altblurbs is proposed by the way. --Tiouraren (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Taiwanese prefer the status quo, which is what Lai explicitly pushed for. The presidential election dominated media coverage and headlines. No one is saying to leave out the legislative election in the articles - it is just not as important for the short blurb. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good, I'm hesitant on ALT2 because there is reporting that Lai supported the status quo position as opposed to Taiwanese independence. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1 or alt1. Natg 19 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 2 I think it's the clearest at explaining the significance of the event in an NPOV way. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 07:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Imam Hassan Sharif
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not recent and death has been known for ten days. Bedivere (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose he was murdered on 3 January. This nom is stale. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from the fact that he might not pass notability requirements, his death happened too long ago. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Hayes (actor)
Thriley (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some unreferenced material in the personal section. Stephen 22:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The unreferenced material in the personal section has references now, so this article now has enough details & references to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Annie Nightingale
She was best known for being BBC Radio 1's first female presenter and longest-serving host, as well as an innovative figure within British music and radio platforms. Unfortunately, the article is pretty much a mess at the moment (being in desperate need of sources and copy-editing), but I hope someone can help fix it! Oltrepier (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There are still a number of footnote-free paragraphs, so sourcing in this wikibio seems rather inadequate. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Yemeni airstrikes

 * support it's an obvious invasion to a country and it's important, a high escalate invasion involving two mean power nations and their alleys  is indeed big news. 3000MAX (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend calling them "mean power nations" as a reason for supporting, since it gives the impression of POV. JM (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, I'd also recommend adding the map as a picture  Abo Yemen ✉  04:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the article needs to be improved before we post this. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article covered the whole thing splendidly, it's short because we're in the very early stage of the incident and there is very little detailed information released about the conflit. 3000MAX (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is well-cited and I previously supported the Operation Prosperity Guardian nomination (and nominated it, but withdrew after you beat me to it) so of course I support this one. JM (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - lets go. Hugely notable event, and there will be a lot more from this, so we could possibly put it in ongoing (I think it's detached enough from the war in Israel to count) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Extremely notable news. Might be put in ongoing if this leads to a more long-term conflict, but I'd say we should wait for that first. Article is a bit short, but we can work on that. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 08:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article linked in the lead is currently a double redirect. Fixed, but it's still a redirect now. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 10:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I started a move request as the title of the article is misleading, implying the strikes were against Yemen as a country rather than one terrorist group within it PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support First joint U.S., U.K. airstrikes since the 2018 bombing of Syria. Ecrusized (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Reggie Wells (makeup artist)
The personal makeup artist of Oprah Winfrey for nearly 30 years. Obit published 11 January. Thriley (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Death is not mentioned or referenced. Stephen 08:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just added that one sentence, but the article is still stubby. The intro has things not mentioned elsewhere in the article; perhaps these things should be elaborated upon in the main prose and such an expansion will make the wikibio less stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ruth Ashton Taylor
First female television newscaster in Los Angeles. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:A0BE:FDB3:E27C:DE52 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Well-referenced and updated. gobonobo  + c 14:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article states that  the lack of conventional roles for women in broadcasting had given her considerable freedom in the stories she selected to cover but does not give examples of notable stories that the subject covered; overall article could use additional depth.  Spencer T• C 07:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
Internationally relevant case with global coverage and reactions by dozens of states. ICJ decisions have regularly made In The News before. Article has disputed neutrality but is well sourced and developed. Relevant to currently-featured news concerning US-led airstrikes against Yemen, and vice-versa. YuriNikolai (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose orange tags disqualify ITN nominations. JM (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Orange tag has disappeared, but I still oppose on two other factors: significance and coverage by ongoing. JM (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note the page's POV discussion has (currently) no explanation of the POVs that would be supposedly underrepresented, and editors generally agreeing that the page is well-balanced after recent edits. I have not removed the tag as the discussion is active, but I believe the tag is unwarranted. Please see the discussion and tell me what you think YuriNikolai (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is already covered by the ongoing Israel–Hamas war entry which contains extensive accusations of genocide by both sides. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the court’s decision will be ITN-worthy, but I wouldn’t consider the hearings ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted above this is covered by the Israel–Hamas war entry. While it could be argued that the 2024 Yemeni airstrikes article is also part of that (which was posted), it seems to me that these proceedings are nothing like as significant, and I'm doubtful that they ever will be, even after any decision is announced. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Blaylockjam10 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment – I think we should post the beginning of this case but I also think we should post a lot more things. However, under our current precendent we would wait for the outcome of at least the initial order to post a blurb. I reject the idea that just because the war is listed in Ongoing that we would never post blurbs. That is not our established practice and we often post major events in Ongoing items. I certainly think the final outcome of this case (which is likely not coming for years) should be posted. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as with most trials, we only post at the time of judgment, and given we have the ongoing, we don't need anything pre-judgment to be covered separately. --M asem (t) 14:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Close. At the very least waiting for a judgement is prudent here, even if I doubt one would pass either. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amalija Knavs
Mother of Melania Trump. Thriley (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynja
She died on January 1, but her death was announced on January 11. gobonobo + c 20:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, can't believe this is true. However, article does seem to need some work. BeamSkies47 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is so much about her earlier life; I was able to find citations verifying her time at MIT through Newspapers.com.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 11:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and long enough. Nigej (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the article's creator. I also made the needed expansions to her article.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 00:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good, subject is well notable and her death is getting widespread coverage from the media. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">Panamitsu (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, looking good and well sourced to me. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. A homo sapien sapien (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and well-cited. This is ready to be posted anytime from now. Vida0007 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted following some small cleanup. A WP:BLP protection may be in order soon. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Upano Valley sites
Major discovery in archaeology; large urban complex in a region not thought to have significant urban settlement. I'm open to altblurbs but would like to emphasize the age of the sites if possible. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Article's pretty bad atm. Also notability is dubious PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Spectacular archeological discovery announced today regarding a surprisingly large network of cities in Ecuador pre-European contact, estimated population 10 to 100 thousand. Hidden by the Amazon, discovered by LIDAR, such levels of urbanization in South American were previously unknown. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, always happy to highlight science discoveries at ITN! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Seems like a BFD. I'd like to see an infobox added and a bit more expansion, if possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems this was nominated twice on different days, so I'm condensing it to one nomination at the older nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! I've added a brief infobox and will look around to see if there's any other information I can add to the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Would like to see a bit more article expansion, but seems notable enough for ITN and is certainly different than our average blurbs. The   Kip  20:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support citations are there, not entirely sure about notability but certainly interesting. JM (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This seems notable enough for ITN & it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability The quality of the article is acceptable. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)  03:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you so much for posting this as a main in the news feature. This is certainly important, fascinating, and I want to know as much as I can about it. We know so little about our ancient past, and this discovery certainly changes a lot. Again, thank you. FPTI (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edward Jay Epstein
Obituary published 11 January. Thriley (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Published works" require ISBNs at a minimum, some more sources needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ISBNs and other details added. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is much improved. Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Broadbent
Former Fed NDP Leader – Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality One of the sections is unsourced --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * just finished sourcing his Political career section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources are now present. I now Support --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality As above. Once that's cleaned up, Support. Maj. Warden (talk) 1:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * hope you can take another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The "Early life" section includes some of his '80s career, two of his wives' deaths this century and his own the other day. That's not early. Parts of this and "After politics" should go into a "Personal life". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done JM (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support well-cited, not a stub, and I've just fixed up the timeline issues in "Early life". JM (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering quality has been resolved as far as I can tell, this is ready to post. JM (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tamara Milashkina
Important soprano from the Bolshoi Theatre who appeared at La Scala in 1962 (!) and the Metropolitan Opera (with the Bolshoi) in 1975, + all over Europe it seems. The article was a stub. I wish we had a decent obit in English, or at least in Russian. plenty of yt to listen to her "living" her characters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1 CN tag, but otherwise should be ready soon.  Spencer T• C 07:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The CN was for four roles at La Scala, two in 1964 and two in 1973. I found a NYT review for the two in 1964, but couldn't find a similar one for the others, - help wanted! - Problem is that this sentence was there before, no idea (yet) by whom and on which source, is repeated a lot over the internet, and she received a notable prize the same year which Google offers before any Italian tour would come up. If we don't find something valid I believe we can drop the item (roles mentioned before anyway) without loosing much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Found: https://operawire.com/obituary-soprano-tamara-milashkina-dies-at-89/ but without date. Grimes2 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, seen and nothing there that we don't have. Slippedisc (also out there) is worse as simply misleading large-scale, saying that she toured after the retired from the Bolshoi. But: It finally dawned on me that she is spelled with sch (vs sh) in German, which gave access to Vienna roles, and the GLS!! There's a Pravda-de obit in German which has Vienna as POD, - getting closer. I used it for that one fact, but the translation is atrocious, and I'd prefer to quote it in Russian. Help? - The fact that she lived in Austria since she left the Bolshoi (last century) seems to explain why there's no more in Russian now. There should, however, be earlier reviews in Russian. - RL calling me now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bud Harrelson
Not ready yet for the usual reason, I will work in it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, fully-referenced now. Thanks to Muboshgu for his help! ~ Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 22:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work. Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jennell Jaquays
Transgender American game designer/artist. In good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * * Support Article is in good shape Aure entuluva (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Before Wikipedia's creation, Jaquays was a notable male RPG game designer and artist under the deadname. The subject transitioned to Jennell and as a woman continued to be a notable (and heroic) game community figure for the rest of a quite active career. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This raises a small point: she has significant works published under her deadname so that while it is mentioned in the infobox, it should likely be in the lede as that name redirects to the page. M asem (t) 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been a subject of much discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at the archives and most of the discussion was prior to formal establishment of MOS:GENDERID (which states the dead name should be included in the lede on this type of case).<span id="Masem:1704990354518:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support only one cn tag remains. It would be nice if this could be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Works section appears to be unreferenced. Please add more REFs.--PFHLai (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: César Alierta
Spanish businessman. Needs a little work. Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article needs a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: James Kottak
Former Scorpions drummer. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:CC28:29AC:1B6E:1A21 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Somewhat undersourced, especially in the career bit, and the discography is completely unsourced as well. However, why is the section "Political Views" so titled?  It appears to be a list of his quotes being obviously racist, with no relationship to politics as far as I can see.  I'm sure most "political conservatives" (as the article says) wouldn't be too happy about being lumped in with this unpleasant character. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. And the Discography appears to be unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Charles O. Jones
Influential American political scientist. Obituary published 9 January. Thriley (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 156 words of prose. The Academic career section is mostly a string of unreferenced bullet-points. Please expand this article and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 armed conflict in Ecuador
Events follows the escape of cartel leader José Adolfo Macías Villamar yesterday. Hostages have been taken in several confrontations, including journalists on live TV, prompting the declaration. Feel free to improve the blurb's wording. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional support article quality is not very good and is basically a stub. Lukt64 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanded article with the info we have at the moment. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article needs being completed and refined, but the event itself is undoubtedly newsworthy. Trepang2 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Newsworthy blurb. Currently expanding article. As more information comes in, the article will be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Ecuadorian security crisis was merged into Crime in Ecuador following this AfD several months ago. Why is this considered a separate event? This appears to be a continuation of the ongoing security crisis rather than a new conflict. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this article largely circles around the simultaneous events of Los Chorones leader escaping from prison, Noboa's decree, the simultaneous armed attacks throughout the country in a single day and the takeover of a live television station. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Every country south of the Rio Grande is an economic and social disaster plagued with poverty, crime, corruption and unspeakable violence. It's been this way since Bolivar rebelled and will continue until these locusts have devoured every resource in the western hemisphere. Ongoing seems a reasonable way to feature this cesspool of human misery. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not big enough for ongoing yet. If it devolves into Sudan-like warfare, ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Mexican drug war has killed over a quarter million people. Narco terrorists like Villamar don't respect national borders any more than ISIS does but maybe something like Crime and violence in Latin America belongs in ongoing - though it's not getting the updates. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the Mexican drug war is in the second-tier Ongoing list at Portal:Current events. JM (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support But the article needs improving first. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. I wondered about long-term significance, but since this is a blurb nom and not an ongoing nom, I don't think it matters so much. JM (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - major news, and definitely unprecedented in a place like Ecuador. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Should check out, everything looks good. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support extremely notable. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article improved, definitely important. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted a shortened blurb per unanimous consensus above. Ed [talk] [OMT]
 * Post-posting support Definitely big news. TwistedAxe   [contact]  20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

South Korean dog meat ban
A historical end of the local curiosity that may also put to rest the old meme about dog meat eating (although the law is said to come into effect later). Some citation issues, but otherwise looks ok. Brandmeistertalk  20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dumb question: does this need approval by the executive side of SK's govt? If so, we should wait on that, and if not, then now is the ripe time. M asem (t) 20:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the president can veto the law, although it seems unlikely considering the bill is bipartisan. However, the blub is incorrect, as bills, not laws, are passed by parliaments, and it's "a" bill, not "the" bill. JM (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral, added altblurb2 (I am not sure if "production of dog meat" is a better phrase than "dog meat production", so I am leaving altblurb1 as it is). Tube·of·Light 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, shorter is better. As an alternative, different is better. While DMP is standard, PoDM should remain, IMO. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support good quality article. Although clicking on the link I would be expected to be taken to a page on dog meat production (I.e. dog meat farms) but the article relates to consumption. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited impact with regards to a law that impacts a single country and with regards to a practice that was already heavily restricted and in decline in the first place. Regarding the rationale that was posted here, dog meat consumption is not exclusive to South Korea. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dunno why Inedible Hulk removed his comments, but they were spot-on: this isn't effective until 2027. Three years isn't just "later", it's too far off.  I'll grant that this is generating some coverage now, yes, but if it's that significant, it'll generate coverage again. —Cryptic 10:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My edit summaries (somewhat) alluded to why, but in their usual way, Cryptic. In a nutshell, the more I learned, the clunkier Alt III became and the more opposed I got. If one of those comments hadn't mentioned my planned neutrality and role in its formation, I could have just Opposed and passed it off as an altblurb. But by then, things were complicated, so I left. Still neutral now, just not boldly advertising or giving anyone any ideas. Part of me also feels guilty for suggesting the French PM might be young and gay. Could have played into this. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are certain events that are newsworthy at their commencement, not when they happen, and that generally would be for business mergers (where we generally cover the point they are announced and agreed on by both parties) and significant gov't laws (where the passage is the significant part). Rarely does the date of enaction of a law get the type of coverage that the passage does, so it is generally fair that we cover this change now, rather than in 2027 where it likely will be a blip. M asem (t) 13:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but amend This is a significant cultural change within that country so I would say that it is worthy of ITN inclusion, the article looks in good shape. However, I would say based on the wording of the law and comments above, we should add "from 2027" in the blurb if it runs to make it clear it isn't an immediate ban.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 11:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added to altblurb II. Brandmeistertalk  14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see this as a huge deal getting a ton of coverage. JM (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Pulled) Gabriel Attal becomes Prime Minister of France
Change in head of government, therefore ITNR. Article is brief but appears well-sourced.  Sandstein  12:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Nay, Per Pull Technically not R, so what? It's still news. Article looking good and can always get bigger later (that's a very red picture, though, see the one in his article). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, what needed to be updated got updated, article in good shape although some wording could be improved. Not ITN/R however, but the whole reshuffling is still a relevant plot twist for anyone watching the last season of French politics. Changing to Weak oppose as ultimately still not that meaningful, given the lack of actual power of the PM. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 12:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it weird, in France, in 2024, that he's gay? Openly gay, anyway? I mean, to the point that we should point it out? Or is it cool? If so, cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is of no consequence. If he does his job well then it doesn't matter one bit. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the other editor is asking if it's significant to the French public. Especially considering he's apparently the first, and that France is a plurality Catholic (and significant minority Muslim) country. I.e., whether or not this is controversial or groundbreaking to the French public. JM (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You thought correctly. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a French person, I don't think many people care too much about it. There's a Catholic plurality but most of them aren't the conservative religious kind, from what I understand there are a lot of non-practicing Catholics around. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 18:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an ITNR (the President of France holds the power, the PM is the lesser position, as discussed when the former PM resigned). --M asem  (t) 13:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb which includes the fact that he's the youngest and first openly gay PM of France, which a lot of media are focusing on. Johndavies837 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to be in decent shape, and the news are notable enough. (Also, I agree with InedibleHulk on using the other picture of him instead.) Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - On the fence, but I think this just about makes it to being notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support alt1 – Seeing as the Borne article is hardly updated, I don't mind it being omitted. Attal's own article can use a more extensive update too, tho. It doesn't say much the altblurb isn't already saying. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should default to not posting changes to these secondary roles, and only do so where there is something especially notable. Otherwise, we are going to end up showing the kind of bias that the ITN/R list exists to counter.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it's not a change of the person who exercises executive power in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Most of the time the PM in France acts as the de-facto chief administrator for the president. But the office is not completely unimportant. While I am not impressed by the article's quality, I think it is minimally adequate for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 the story here is that he's the youngest and first openly gay. That's why it should be blurbed. If it were just a change of PM, I would probably be opposed. JM (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 The main aspect of the notability here is that he is the first gay and the youngest PM of France ever; I agree with JM2023 above. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 Per Ad Orientem and JM. The main story is that he's the first gay and youngest PM and also youngest serving state leader in the world right now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Alt1 per Ad Orientem & JM. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support France is odd because both the President and PM hold executive power. Worth blurbing. Attal being the youngest PM and the first openly gay one just add to the notability. Khuft (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the president is who administers the executive role in France, not the PM, so this is not ITNR, and dont find the first gay PM or youngest particularly noteworthy.  nableezy  - 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Change in head of gov ought to be ITN/R in my opinion This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Changes of head of govt are ITNR, but the PM position in France is not the head of gov't, that is the prrsident.<span id="Masem:1704841706282:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 23:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Close. The PM is the head of government. The head of government just has fewer executive powers than the head of state (president) in France. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You should probably pull this. I don't think there was consensus for this. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A simple !vote count (and I know it's not a democracy) of pre-posting votes shows 12-4 in support (a 3:1 ratio). So there was a consensus, at least at the time of posting. JM (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think 12 hours is too short a time for a debate of a blurb about something fairly minor. Thriley (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no time qualification, and after 12 hours it had 18 separate users giving input and at the time there was a consensus. This wouldn't be the first time something is pulled due to post-posting oppositions, and I don't think it indicates a problem on the admin's part. JM (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I look at ITN fairly frequently. With a few opposed, I would have waited a bit longer to post. Thriley (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hits the nail on the head. A number of people had participated in the discussion, there was a clear consensus to post (both in the number and strength of the support arguments), and that consensus was specifically for ALT1. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with the judgment of consensus. I would suggest that more caution be taken when the discussion at ITNC diverges from long-standing consensus regarding changes to lesser positions in government.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As per the !votes expressed above, the blurb was not focused on a simple change to a lesser position in government. That said, if there's support for a blurb, it'll get posted. As WP:ITNSIGNIF says, "it is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose any reference to their age or sexuality which are not relevant to their post. This reads like political cheerleading. Assuming he is re-elected, are we going to refer to Biden as "the oldest man ever elected to the presidency of the United States?" -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * honestly we probably are... Lukt64 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care what goes into the blurb; I posted ALT1 because multiple people specifically preferred it. But... this comment got me curious, so I brought up Google News and nearly every headline I'm seeing mentions his age. For example, The New York Times's headline for this story is "France Gets Its Youngest and First Openly Gay Prime Minister". France24's is "How Gabriel Attal became France’s youngest-ever prime minister". The Associated Press has "Gabriel Attal is France’s youngest-ever prime minister at age 34 and the first who is openly gay". The BBC has "Gabriel Attal: Macron's pick for PM is France's youngest at 34". And Reuters has "Macron sends out France's youngest prime minister to fend off far right". If ITN wants to track with reliable sources, Attal's age is a highly emphasized part of the story. (Mentions of his sexuality in headlines are also there, but to a far lesser extent.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The PM doesn’t wield power, the President of France does. His sexual orientation, particularly in a country like France, makes no real difference. I’d say differently if this were Iran. Thriley (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull - First, there doesn't appear there was any consensus to post this in the first place, but also, the PM does not have any real power. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull due to lack of consensus Lukt64 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: In the case of Leo Varadkar becoming Taoiseach in June 2017, we didn't mention his sexuality. Tube·of·Light 02:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull, or reword blurb to the nonalternative. ITN is not a carbon copy of the English-speaking media. Kymothoë (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull. There was never a consensus to post this. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  03:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pulled I don't see any consensus anymore and there are concerns over the blurb wording. Galobtter (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing special for being openly gay (I have nothing against gay people in fact, it's just that being the first gay in such post to me is nothing special). --Bedivere (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This story is getting worldwide media attention therefore it is pretty much In The News. Being a openly gay Prime Minister is very noteworthy in my opinion. The article looks fine to me. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The prime minister in France is just a fuse that the president changes to absorb popular dissatisfaction. Also, no one in France is talking about the fact that he is openly gay. This is just activism on the part of woke anglo-saxon media. Tradedia talk 06:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I continue to support my original blurb ("Gabriel Attal (pictured) succeeds Élisabeth Borne as Prime Minister of France"), but oppose the alt blurb because it replaces the substantive political story with human interest trivia.  Sandstein   07:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention this in my initial vote, but I also think the additions of the altblurb are kind of irrelevant - at least his sexuality is, his age I kind of understand. Still support an overall blurb, assuming the first blurb is used. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think this news story is blurb worthy as per the supporters above. LiamKorda (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my vote on the last one. The PM in France is effectively second to the President. The   Kip  16:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Rashid Khan (musician)

 * Comment if posted, I would favour listing them on RD as Rashid Khan (musician) not Rashid Khan, for which there is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of someone else: Rashid Khan (Afghan cricketer). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still a few footnote-free paragraphs. The 2 discographies appear to be unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 81st Golden Globe Awards

 * Lily Gladstone became the first Indigenous person to win a Golden Globe, specifically, Best Actress in a motion picture (drama). This was major news for Indigenous communities. Admittedly, I did not watch the Golden Globes, but this was major news and I’m surprised nobody nominated this or other elements of the award show. Because I did not watch it, unfortunately, there may be other stories I have missed. Also, while I have been accustomed to the ITNR process, it has been awhile since I have nominated an event, so I may have mistakes. I’m open to others adding alt-blurbs or rewriting it/or if necessary, a renomination. But I thought I’d at least submit this and see what happens. Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe it's better to consider the whole event for a blurb. Isn't it? Highlighting that an indigenous actress won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress sounds a bit racist.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's tricky here. Not so much that she's native, but that she's the first native to receive an honour they traditionally don't. Somewhat racist, somewhat celebratory of reconciliation and equality, neither in a demeaning way. It's not like anyone besides hardcore baseball fans remembers who else won the game Jackie Robinson first played...is it? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The blurb should (maybe) be clearer that this is the first Golden Globe any acting native's won. Not exactly a women's issue. There are certainly women's issues involved. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least the selected blurb. If we are going to nominating the GGs, it should mirror what we do for Oscars and/or Emmys, which here would be the Best Drama and Best Comedy films, and then Best Drama and Best Comedy television series. As the GGs are considered secondary to either of the Oscars or Emmys (often used to make guesses of how the relevant academies will vote ) and that the Emmys are next week, I think we should not post these. --M asem (t) 13:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me add that if this win was so significant, I would expect a lot of sourcing to highlight this specific win, but the sourcing given is fairly weak - it acknowledges the achievement but its not ground breaking as I would expect.<span id="Masem:1704806451799:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more helpful to simply name Gladstone's win, and direct readers to the article for more details. See altblurb 1. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, what next, "the first Dalit winner of best supporting actor at the 5th-ranked Indian movie awards"? Golden Globes are not taken seriously by anyone and "first X minority" events happen often enough to fill the recent news. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb I - The other blurbs place an UNDUEWEIGHT on Lily Gladstone's ethnicity, would be best to just blurb the entire event including her win. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I'd object to the term 'indigenous person' being used as there is no clear definition on what it even means; first Native American would be better PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the peoples that inhabited the Americas before the arrival of European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples seems clear enough to me. I'd had it as "Native American" initially. Then I considered how that excludes everyone outside the US, how it wasn't used by the sources and how that term leads to a disambiguation page. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't say "indigenous person of the Americas", it says "indigenous person" which is much more ambiguous; it's a term often used in a "post-colonial" context to refer to the ethnicities living in an area at the time of contact and/or colonization, anywhere in the world. However, no one can really help it if the sources go for "indigenous person" over specifically "Native American" which is the usual term for indigenous American. JM (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the beauty of pipelinks, plain talk done quick. If confused, click. When talking only about the natives from the United States and no more specific, sure, "Native American" works. But not when referring to an "indio" or "First Nations" member, who are also among the Indigenous peoples of the Americas Lily Gladstone beat to first place in the history books (or, arguably, "represented") that night. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurbs that focus on the race of one individual, which is inappropriate and would set a bad precedent. Neutral on posting the event in our usual way - just stating the winners of the main awards. The Golden Globes aren't on WP:ITNR, which have a lot of other film items already, but I don't know if there's a good argument for including this event as well. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It may or not be a good idea. But it wouldn't be the first time a blurb has focused on race. Even back in those precedent-setting days, a lot of people didn't think it was a good idea. And yes, I feel uncomfortable linking any specific examples. Just search the archives for "first Asian" or "first African" for more (including failed proposals). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose all per above. JM (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Golden Globes are not the preeminent film awards in the US. I could see her blurbed if she wins an Oscar. Thriley (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a second rate award ceremony. Don't support the blurb either it's written with a very American-centric viewpoint. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would have been blurb worthy if she had won the Oscar award for best actress, but Golden Globes are only the second rated awards after the Oscars.PrinceofPunjab (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this is an important milestone in the context of a meh award show, but can see I'm outnumbered. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. LiamKorda (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski
Polish priest and anticommunist activist. Remsense 留  10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems good. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are some unsourced paras and lines. Article is not ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Publications section remains unsourced. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) College Football National Championship

 * BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This needs some work to qualify, but here me through on why this has the notability. This is not a "minor" or "second-tier" or game of "little importance" (previous arguments against inclusion). College football is ENORMOUSLY popular, and it's arguably a different code than the NFL and thus is not at all accurately considered "second-tier". And one cannot claim this is not worthy of posting due to being amateur or of one country, as we post the direct equivalent in basketball -- which college football is more popular than -- and ITN policy prohibits opposing something solely for being of one country. Note that college football is the second most-popular sport in the U.S., only behind NFL football. Eight out of 10 of the largest sports stadiums in the world are all for college football, and they regularly are filled in college games. The current slot of In the News is the "PDC Darts Championship", something that pales in comparison to college football's popularity. I compared viewership stats for the championships in each last year, darts was a tenth of the college championship. Literally ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO college football games from this year EXCEEDED the viewership for the darts championship, including games by little-known teams like Bowling Green and Miami Ohio. Literally Liberty versus Oregon this season had higher viewership than major events that we always post such as the Stanley Cup and World Baseball Classic. In fact, I compared last year's college football championship to many of the other events we post (WP:ITNSPORTS), and found that it bested in viewership FORTY OUT OF FORTY-ONE events (the other: the Super Bowl). I admit I did not weigh it against any association football events, cricket events or rugby events, and was unable to find several other viewership statistics, and so it could have been smaller than a few of those. But we need to use common sense. This is one of the most popular and most-viewed sporting events in the world annually whether we like it or not. All reason leads to this being posted. We need to get it done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, when article gets brought up to par . I thought this was ITNR but I guess it was removed? Natg 19 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For some reason, BeanieFan11 did not do association football, which I presume exceeds American football, but his point still stands that this final is (likely) one of the most viewed sporting events. Natg 19 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article’s a long ways off. Support on notability, however; as the nom says, a lot of the argument against posting in recent years has effectively boiled down to “it’s only popular in the US,” which could realistically apply to multiple sports we post at ITNR that are of limited regional popularity. The   Kip <
 * Oppose On quality, too many unsourced sections. As for WP:ITNSPORTS this isn't on the list, this sort of match would appear to be on par with The Varsity Match which also doesn't appear on it and I am not convinced a university sports match should be there on merit but that's an aside to the quality oppose.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we compare to The Varsity Match, is The Varsity Match nationally televised? Do millions of people watch it on television and 70,000 people attend the event? If so, then I could say that it could also be included at ITN. But college football in the US is vastly different than university sports in other countries. 08:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose After seeing this ITN nomination recurrently for more than a decade, which is enough for some major movements to happen, there's still no lasting sporting impact out of this. There are absolutely no signs that college football is becoming increasingly popular in different parts of the world, and there are not even any significant efforts made to change that (note that it's never been part of the Youth Olympic Games and the World University Games even though it's a perfect fit). The main argument every year is that it has enormous viewership and generates a lot of money, which indicates that it's a major commercial success, but doesn't tell anything about it as a sporting event. We're here to evaluate this as a sport nomination, not as a product success, so it most definitely doesn't merit inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." As by the same token, there's a number of championships that would be removed as well. Also "College football" isn't the name of the sport: it's a particular sector of Gridiron football, which is a growing worldwide sport. In that scope, it doesn't matter that this particular league doesn't play outside of one country: Premier League isn't even contested beyond one sub-national entity (as it's exclusively English, not British) and yet it'd be flippant to suggest that it should not be ITN/R let 'alone' that it's not notable enough to post whatsoever. But the logic you present would only be consistent with such a claim. Nottheking (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't do it. I just made an argument that this is not significant for posting. If you feel that a "number" of championships should be removed, you're encouraged to nominate them for it. If "college football" isn't the name of the sport and it's gridiron football, then this is effectively an amateur competition that shouldn't be included because the NFL is the top-flight competition (the comparison to The Boat Race as an amateur competition is no longer valid as it's not an ITN/R item any more). The comparison to the Premier League is completely invalid, as it's at the same level of significance as the NFL. You can't simply fool me that this is a major sport event by claiming that it has large viewership and generates a lot of money. Sport is more than business.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a side note, there aren't even articles for half of the players on the teams that featured in the final. I don't think a blurb on a game contested between anonyms that aren't significant enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article should appear on the main page (just for comparison, we have a stand-alone article for every single player on the Sutton United F.C. team, which is currently in last place in the 2023–24 EFL League Two as a fourth-tier competition in English football).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I was merely pointing out how your logic worked if followed to its conclusion; to suggest I make that recommendation myself is to act in bad faith by blatantly disregarding what I said.
 * Likewise, it's worth noting that there's also a difference between professional and amateur athletes: we don't have individual articles for every single athlete that participates in the Olympics, (which chiefly features amateurs, not professionals) after all. So again, following your logic we wouldn't just remove Premier League, but the Olympics themselves as "not notable." Nottheking (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples with strawberries. We don't need articles on sportspeople to post blurbs on sport events in which those people aren't involved. While it's true that we don't have an article about every single participant at the Olympics, we certainly do about every single medallist in both individual and team sports (we post blurbs about winners, not about participants). You can take a look at the blurbs that we've recently posted on team sports, and you'll notice that we do have articles about all players on the teams included in the blurbs. Again, we're here to post sport events, not commercial product successes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kiril. Not that popular and significant in a worldwide context. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you have to say to the fact that 182 individual college games this year exceeded the viewership of the darts championship currently posted? And the fact that it beats nearly every single ITNSPORTS item regularly? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very simple. The criterion of "viewership" is not so relevant to define what is ITNR and what is not, but that, in the case of sports, above all it is a championship or final that is the highest level of the sector (in the case of darts) and/or has an unquestionable international interest and impact (soccer World Cup, NBA, etc.). This is not the case of the college games and never has been. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, what more impact does the NCAA basketball championship have than the football championship? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I frankly believe that the NCAA should not be ITNR for the same reason as the college games. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and neutral on importance. There is zero sourced, text content about the game, and instead way too many tables of information. And lots of that poor quality content is also unsourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on Notability, oppose on quality. The game attracted more viewers than most final matches for football & rugby championships that are listed under ITN/R. It's hard to over-state the news presence of this, and dismissal of it is difficult to do without opting to ignore all that. However, while the article is clear of glaring flaws, it still needs substantial added prose: this is the chief reason even a lot of ITN/R championships wind up not getting posted, as their pages are often just a dump of number tables rather than an encyclopedic articles. Nottheking (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose An entirely domestic event. Nigej (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not that the event "only relates to a single country"; it's that only people in that country are the slightest bit interested in it. Nigej (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, "only relates to a single country". That's not a valid reason to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I would say that the discussion here about the "Prime Minister of France" "only relates to a single country". However, I wouldn't dismiss that as I have this proposal because many people around the world are interested in who the Prime Minister of France is. No one's outside one country is interested in this event. Nigej (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's almost certain that at least many Canadian football fans are interested, particularly young ones. JM (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there a lot of young Canadian USA-football fans? Even for Canadian football, the support seems to skew much older than you see at other sports, such as soccer - at least in this part of the country. Nfitz (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as I have done every time student sports are nominated. This is not the top level of American football, is restricted to a small number of students at specific universities, is decided partly on subjective ratings not on-field results etc. I appreciate a lot of people watch this event, but a lot also watch Love Island - that doesn't make it suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to "Love Island" is 100% ludicrous - it does not have even nearly comparable viewership to college football. Also note that college football is more popular, per my statistics, than 40 out of 41 ITNSPORTS events I compared it to, including over ten times as much as the PDC Darts Championship currently posted. In fact, 182 individual games from this season exceeded the viewership of the darts tournament. Saying it to be "not popular" or of "little importance" is quite frankly, nonsense, when we've got that darts championship up there. Not to mention we always post March Madness, a directly-equivalent-but-less-popular college basketball championship... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Try adding together all the Love Islands in all the different countries, in the peak year... Or pick whichever reality show gets the most worldwide audience. Anyway, I never compared college football to darts or said it was 'not popular'; my whole point is just because it's popular doesn't mean we should post it. We post the top level of most sports, and this amateur student tournament isn't the top level. I have consistently opposed college basketball for the same reasons. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That still wouldn't come close to college football's popularity, but this is the top level of college football. NFL football is arguably a different code, just like is Canadian football (although NFL and college are more similar than NFL and CFL). Even if we don't go by popularity, there's a point when we should use common sense, such as when 182 individual games from a single season beat out the PDC Darts Championship currently posted, or when the college football championship bests literally 40 out of 41 ITNSPORTS events in popularity. It is massively important here in the U.S., meanwhile, I've never heard a single person ever talk about that darts championship. Also worth noting that we post nine rugby events here annually, those all can't possibly be the top tier... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Simply repeating the same points ad nauseum will not change my opinion. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, and it may just be me, but I think there's a problem when we're posting little-known events from little-known sports whereas rejecting the most popular sporting events in the world... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly stated this comparison of viewing figures, but I just checked here and here, and it would seem that you have mistakenly only counted the Darts viewing figures in Germany alone. Effy Midwinter (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Opppose This is a minor, second-tier game of little importance, given that the competition is limited to college students of one particular country Chrisclear (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Opppose. Not that important as the NFL. It’s kinda weird though why March Madness is STILL at ITN/R although CFP isn’t. 2601:2C2:500:A440:4C4A:D068:7C9A:566C (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, no opinion on quality  ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think it's notable enough for ITN. We generally don't post amateur sporting competitions anymore. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's amateur cause it started in 1860s Princeton and Rutgers in the very infancy of professional sports with a lot of the players being olde-fashioned Victorian men who lived off interest, the same reason they made the Olympics amateur in the 1890s. The people in charge just wanted to keep it amateur and no player has been able to successfully sue them or lobby the Congress and POTUS or something so far (though lately they have been able to lobby many states to pass laws forcing them to allow payments for use of their name and image to make money (i.e. college football video games) and even endorsements (leading to comical situations of college undergrads leaving the 56 states and territories just to be allowed to film all the endorsement ads as soon as possible in one day one after another after another after another then immediately traveling back. These are very popular athletes who'd make bank if they were paid the free market rate to play)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, see March Madness, which is actually less popular than the college football championship per my data. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose to be consistent (with my previous comments), we shouldn't be posting student sports, regardless of how many people turn on their TVs. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, we do, including the directly equivalent-but-less-popular college basketball tournament. And what do you have to say to the fact that 182 individual college football games had higher viewership than the PDC Darts Championship currently featured? Or the fact that college football is more popular than 40 out of 41 ITNSPORTS events I compared it to? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't use popularity or viewership as a metric. We do want to try to show a diverse array of topics, so a less popular championship from one sport is more important to us than a highly viewed but secondary event in another sport.<span id="Masem:1704822652149:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be how it works in practice, e.g., we post eight rugby events, five golf championships, three marathons and four tennis championships (each of which are less popular than college football, although I haven't found all the data for rugby). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess this is why we have a darts blurb, though I am sure 90% of readers do not know who Luke Humphries is, or care about the PDC World Championship. Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sports may not have the popularity, but they have the larger number of players and events across the world, including international competitions. As we are not US centric, it makes more sense to give more room to sports that have a larger body of players, teams, and events. M asem (t) 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting one of the most popular sporting events in the world is not "US-centric" - avoiding to do it because its from the US is rather "anti-US" - also note that "Rugby is a relative niche sport compared to more popular sports like soccer, basketball, and American football ... In the US, one of the most influential countries in the world, American football overshadowed rugby early on." Why should we give eight times the coverage to rugby as we do to American football? The fact that there's international competitions? American football has that too! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome to advertise the problem why rugby is overrepresented on the talk page. I’d like to see more opinions on the matter and potentially learn something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's rather hilarious to call rugby a "niche" sport; 47 countries competed in the 2023 WC, and it is a top participation and viewership sport in many of those. But yes, this is the main issue - American football has a limited audience.  If there were international tournaments or continental tournaments in the sport (your link to flag football? really?), or even if it had a league system where there was a clear winner - then yes, we would probably post those.  But they don't exist, so we're stuck with the Super Bowl.  Incidentally - having said that, I wouldn't be unhappy if European Rugby Champions Cup or Super Rugby got dropped from ITN/R - I don't think they have the cachet of the other tournaments, and I've said this previously. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 40 out of 41 that you looked up, but I note you didn't mention anything to do with association football or cricket. And this isn't a useful metric anyway; if 1 million people in Ireland (pop 5 million) watch the GAA final, versus 17m for this event in a population of 350m, which is the more notable?  And even if we worked on viewership, it still wouldn't work; for example, we would have to post every cricket Test Match between India and Pakistan, or multiple Premier League football matches every season, many of which get viewership levels in 9 figures.  We can't work like that, it would be silly. Furthermore, the events you mention are top level events in their sports, which college football quite clearly isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. I see we still haven't made much headway on this annual competition here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Having two American football related items isn't too much to ask for given the sport's popularity. All the opposes ring hollow. Jessintime (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post amateur sports items to ITN. We post the highest level for each country/region and the global ones.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , patently false. NCAA men's and women's basketball tournament is ITNR. Other amateur events may be as well, I'm not sure. There's no hard rule against amateur events here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why that should be posted either. We have been striking down amateur sporting events from ITN/R these past couple of years since they are not professional in nature. That's part of the reason why The Boat Race was removed from ITN/R. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been attempted to remove those before; unfortunately the Wikipedia demographic has been against it (but still removed the Boat Race, go figure). Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, The Olympics are, at its heart, an amateur sports competition, even if they've allowed a gradual encroachment of professionals in a few of its sports. That kinda takes the wind out of any claim that being an amateur competition renders it invalid. Nottheking (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Olympics are recognized as the highest level of global sports competition. Competitions between student organizations are not at the same level. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient importance. There are all kinds of sports championships and we can't post them all. Conceding possible exceptions if there is something that makes a particular game/match really stand out, in general I think college level sports and championships just don't belong on ITN. We need to draw some lines, and I think this is a good starting point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the fact that it is more popular than 40 out of 41 ITNSPORTS events that it was compared to, or the fact that 182 individual games from this year exceeded the viewership of the current darts championship posted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet the darts final is an international event at the top level for its sport. This is neither. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The only argument in favour of posting presented here is that its viewership and total money generated cannot be disregarded. For a zillionth time, sport is more than business. There are numerous other things with large viewership that generate a lot of money that we don’t post. For instance, the the original telecast of Game of Thrones recorded an average of 17.4 million back in 2019, which is more than the viewership of this game, but we didn’t post it even though it was largely in the media. So, please don’t wave viewership as a decisive criterion for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability May technically be an "amateur" competition but college football is a multi-million dollar business attracting huge interest and viewership. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of opinions, but mostly irrelevant at the moment because the article still isn't in any shape to be posted even if there was a consensus to do so. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on notability and quality For one, its not the highest-level competition in the sport by any means. Viewership does not mean that its inherently notable for ITN; I agree with Kiril Simeonovski above. As for the quality, it is not at all ITN-worthy, with little information about the actual game. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An article worth showing from today: "Love the CFP or Hate It, There’s No Debating It’s Huge, and Only Getting Bigger". BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You would be better off showing how this event has major coverage outside the US. I mean, I'm not a fan of having the NCAA finals on ITN/R, but at least that gets decent coverage in other countries. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See for example The Guardian (England) and CBC (Canada), though I admit I am uncertain at how to do google searches relating to specific countries. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per BeanieFan11 on account of the fact that pretty much every other sporting event we have at ITN/R has been justified under viewership numbers, which would make the CFB Championship valid for posting as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * this criterion has not really been followed to justify sports events in ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely not a metric that is used to justify ITN/R, otherwise we'd actually post far more cricket and association football events, as I mentioned above, and far fewer minority sports. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And how else would you gauge the worthiness of a sports item for ITN then popularity? Because any time I've personally disputed such an item's ITN/R status I was was responded to with viewership metrics (ie for billiards or darts). DarkSide830 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but oppose on quality  This is a popular football game & the championship for college football. It may not be the highest level of competition for football, but the Japan Series isn’t the highest level of competition for baseball & that’s an ITNR event, so I think it’s fine to post an event that isn’t the highest level of competition for a sport. However, the article’s quality isn’t good enough. The article‘s quality is good enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nuanced on notability, oppose on quality. I 100% agree with User:BeanieFan11 that this championship is orders of magnitude more important in terms of number of people watching and cultural importance than darts, and if we're going to include things like darts or March Madness then it doesn't make any sense to exclude the college football championship. On the other hand, I think WRT to global interest and lasting significance none of the above should be on ITN. Minor sports and country-limited amateur competitions are just not going to have broad enough impact. Disclosure that I'm a UW alumna and also apparently as of late an enemy of darts...
 * JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Replace darts blurb with the championship this time, then remove both -- and March Madness, and sailing -- from ITN consideration in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, among the most widely watched national championships on the planet. The comparisons to the Boat Race or The Varsity Match miss that this is a, a national championship and not a match between two preset opponents, and b, actually covered much more widely. UK news sources included. As a story it merits coverage here. But quality is not there so moot. (added at 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC): quality concerns appear to be alleviated, and imo this should be posted).  nableezy  - 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think you'd have the time as you said to expand this at some point so the quality issues can be addressed, then the discussion could focus solely on the notability question? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BeanieFan11 yeah, I'll get started on it shortly. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Update Sections "Background", "Teams", and "Starting lineups" are complete. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support major sporting event, echo rationale from BeanieFan11 and others above. Pinging here all users above who opposed on quality but otherwise supported; I'm not going to bother to ping users who opposed on notability as this is not likely to change their minds. I have completed a total rewrite and expansion of the article modeled after a college football GA and I believe it is now Main Page-quality. If you all would be willing to reconsider your "oppose on quality" votes that would be most appreciated.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fully agree with Modest Genius, Black Kite and others above regarding student sporting events. Especially considering my above comment regarding inaccurate viewing figures. Effy Midwinter (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So it seems that the most recent darts one received 4.8 million viewers - that still pales in comparison to college football - also note that Washington vs. Michigan received 25 million - wayyyy higher and more important. CFB is a huge deal here in the U.S., the second most popular sport behind NFL football per one of the sources I mentioned above; it is ridiculous not to post such a major event, especially as we do post other student sporting events, including the directly-equivalent-but-less-popular NCAA basketball championship. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for the second time you are quoting viewing figures from a single country. And your assertion that viewing figures make an event "wayyyy" more important is nonsense. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And also in one country, college football received over 25 million viewers. What are you saying makes something more or less important than another event? Whether something is "In the News" should be the standard in my opinion, and this clearly is (see below where I listed coverage in 11 different countries, plus just about every media outlet in the U.S. covered it). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that you have twice claimed a viewing figure for Darts from a single country (both of which have a much smaller population than the US) as if it is the global total, and then compared it unfavourably with College Football. And I did not state what makes something important, but it isn't just viewing figures in the USA. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you find the global darts viewership, then? I still highly doubt it passes college football; but even if so, college football still exceeds the viewership of 39 out of the 40 others listed in my notes. We need to use sense here. When something is this big and this "in the news" it is worthy of being posted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No I don't know the global viewing figures. But the 10x claim you made was clearly erroneous, as was the second figure. Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But what about all the other comparisons to sports that we post? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those figures are all over the place. I can see immediately that you've used the figures from a single country for many of them, including all four Tennis slams. You've also got the US viewing figures for F1 and Le Mans, both of which are far less popular in the US than elsewhere. And your list also has Netball with 15x the viewing figures of Cricket! You may have a point about the sailing though, and we clearly have too many Marathons. Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to any other commenters - all quality concerns have been addressed (in fact, it is such high quality that it is likely to be a good article soon) - and this is considered the highest level of college football (there are five levels, FBS, FCS, II, III, and NAIA, and this is the championship for FBS, the highest); the NFL could be argued as a different code and has differences - see Comparisons between the National Football League and NCAA football - there's also been teams in other countries so one cannot say this is of "solely US interest". And there's also coverage I demonstrated above in other countries of this (especially Canada, where this is also a big deal). This is ridiculous not to post - annually the second-biggest event in the U.S. and one of the biggest in the world - when we post things of so much less importance... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to ITN,, where everything's made up and the points don't matter. We agree on the merits—this isn't snarking at you! Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Coverage from Australia, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Denmark, Mexico, Spain, Japan, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per high interest. There's a strange bar being put in place here by some for an event that is amateur in name only. As PBS puts it, "The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world [...]". They added that Division 1 sports brought in $15.8 billion dollars in 2019, of which "almost all [...] comes from football and men's basketball". For comparison: the NFL, the richest sports league in the world, brought in about $15.26 billion dollars in the same year/2019. The Premier League brought in £5.5 billion pounds in 2021–22, which if converted today comes out to about $7 billion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And with college football stars now signing endorsement deals for millions of dollars, its hard to call them amateurs anyway.  nableezy  - 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, college football (and basketball) is "amateur in name only" now, with the NIL and endorsement deals. Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That this generates a lot of money is clear as day, but that’s not a criterion which makes a sport event significant. Once again, sport is more than business. A significant sport event is one that makes lasting impact and inspires the youth around the world to get involved in it. Association football is not significant because it’s a huge business, but because it impacts billions of people in virtually all pockets of the world. An impactful college league is expected to lead other similar college competitions to appear in this sport around the world. Unfortunately, it’s not the case here. However people hang on to the notion that it’s a big thing because it generates a lot of money, it’s completely irrelevant as long as there isn’t a single verifiable proof that this sport expands or this competition format mirrors elsewhere. We’ve been discussing the same thing for more than ten years now (probably more as I stopped counting the years), but there hasn’t been any major change or, at least, any developing trend to observe. Just to compare, even a sport like snooker managed to expand over the past decade, which is evident from the wave of young Chinese players entering the elite.


 * To flesh this out with a comparable real-world example, take a look at the lists of World Heritage Sites. The listed monuments are not there because they are big, expensive or their visits generate a lot of money, but because they have a different value that cannot be expressed in money and the number of visits. The same goes with sport events, TV shows, films snd anything else. So, viewership and money generated may indicate a commercial product success, but most definitely not that a sport event is more significant than any other.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. Sports become significant because of viewership and business. Sports like snooker, darts, sailing, etc are less significant (though ITN disagrees) because they are smaller scale sports. Association football is big because it generates tons of money and is big business in Europe and around the world. Same with cricket or rugby in those countries. Whether it "inspires" people or not is irrelevant. ITN does like to feature smaller sports, for variety and diversity, but it seems odd to not feature this larger sport for amateur reasons. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely not true. Association football, basketball, ice hockey, athletics and tennis had been major sports long before players turned professional and they became a huge business. You need to better elaborate your argument about what made them so popular in times when viewership and money were not into play as today.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I need to push back here. That is an incredible bar to set for a page that's titled "in the news". It's not "things that existed + were highly popular among amateur players at least X centuries ago, and are now in the news again". But even if we take your argument at face value, gridiron football is decades older than basketball and a few decades newer than ice hockey or modern association football's Cambridge rules. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence has some merit, but it’d open up a Pandora's box for anything else that the same criteria apply to (e.g. TV series, reality shows, films etc.). By that logic, we should post every single thing that has large viewership and generates a lot of money (in one of my previous comments, you can find Game of Thrones as an example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about sports events here. Reality shows are not a relevant comparison. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2022 FA Cup Final had a viewership figure of 8.9 million, which is more in relative terms given that the UK has only a fifth of the US population, but we never considered this competition seriously for posting even though it’s the oldest association football competition in the world with a very long tradition. Not to mention that those articles are available in a dozen of other languages compared to these that are only in French besides English.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 25 million is greater than 8.9 million no matter the country. That is a second-tier competition. The college football championship is the top of all of college football; NFL is arguably a different code; other Wikis should not be relevant here. What matters is if this is "In the News": this is a top story in the U.S. and Canada and more than 10 other countries gave news coverage of it. Long tradition? College football has been played longer than the FA Cup. Everything points to this being notable enough to post. This is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this is embarrassing. The FA Cup audience may have been 8.9m in the UK, but it is generally about 500 million worldwide. And remarkably, the FA Cup isn't ITN/R either!  So I'm pretty sure this minor game doesn't qualify. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Google is really easy to use.       Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, 25 million to 334 million is most definitely less than 8.9 million to 67 million. FA Cup is not a second-tier competition as it features and is usually won by the best clubs in the English football (the current titleholders have also won the Premier League and the UEFA Champions League). College football has been played longer than the FA Cup. The FA Cup was founded in 1871, and the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision was founded in 1978. Every single word you say is utterly wrong. That’s not how a discussion should be carried out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1869 college football season. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 19:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (tons of edit conflicts) 25 million > 8.9 million in all circumstances. The first season of college football was in 1869, not 1978. I might have confused the FA Cup tier-ness from something else, but college football still has higher viewership and "longer tradition". BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And 25 million < 500 million for the FA Cup (see links above). I'd stop now, to be honest, because you are actually embarrassing yourself. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those statistics don't make sense. How would 490+ million more people be interested in England's football championship than those in England? Those seem to be saying "more than a billion will watch!" but I'm not seeing the actual TV statistics (which seem to say 8.9 mil) verifying that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This is the biggest sport in the world. English Premier League teams have hundreds of millions of fans outside the UK. Even regular league games have 9 figure audiences worldwide, every week. It's hardly surprising that the FA Cup Final would get such figures. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're saying, 56 times as many people are interested in England's soccer than English people themselves are? That simply doesn't make sense. But I feel we're getting a little off-topic here; this is about the importance of college football to ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would not be surprised. I am not a soccer fan, but you do underestimate the popularity of soccer/association football. Natg 19 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We’re comparing the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision to the FA Cup, not college football to association football. If that’s the case, Rules derby was first played in 1860. I’d stop now as well. Everything has been said.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its college football national champions that we're comparing, FWIW. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How does darts have a lasting impact and inspires the youth around the world to get involved in it? You may want to read the article I linked above: "Love the CFP or Hate It, There’s No Debating It’s Huge, and Only Getting Bigger". College football is a massive, massive deal in the U.S., and has importance in Canada as well, and the sport appears to be growing in global popularity as a version of it was approved for the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot properly assess its impact, but I assure you that it’s much more globally widespread than American football. I’ve seen people playing darts across pubs in every single place I’ve visited, which isn’t really the case with American football. It’s highly questionable whether darts should be considered a sport, but it’s not time for it now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between people randomly playing it for fun at some pubs versus something that is the most popular and loved sport in one of the world's most influential countries (that is also now an Olympic sport, which darts is not). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish that influence included this sport so that I could wholeheartedly support this event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What kind of "influence" are you looking for? It is ridiculously popular, has higher viewership than almost every. single. other. event that we consider notable enough to post, is clearly in the news, including being featured in nearly every U.S. media source and ones from at least 11 other countries per above... what else could there possibly be? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop making claims about viewing figures when those statistics you keep quoting are a total farce. I've already pointed out above that your list has Netball with 15x the viewing figures of Cricket, so it's clearly nonsense. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I included notes for stats that seemed less certain, and netball was one of them. I also didn't get the stats for most of the cricket events. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is an apples to oranges comparison. Darts is just a little more accessible for pub customers than a 22-player game that requires a large field. Personally, I can't say I've seen association football, ice hockey, athletics, or tennis at any pub I've visited either. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m wondering why was it mentioned in relation to this event when they’re completely different sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why darts is being mentioned (though yes, they are vastly different sports) is because darts is ITNR and recently featured at ITN: In darts, Luke Humphries wins the PDC World Championship. The argument being made is, "if the darts world championship gets to be on ITN, why can't college football?" Natg 19 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * American Football is on ITN/R in the form of the Superbowl. The game played in American universities is not generally considered to be a different sport, despite claims to the contrary. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even by the barely-there standards of WP:ITNSIGNIF, this opinion is a bit wide of the mark. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, ‘significance’ means different thing for different people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that perhaps we stop arguing about Darts, since it isn't really relevant to this anyway? Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Ed JM (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite my support, I suggest a close because this isn't going to get consensus and people are wasting time arguing with each other; no-one on either side of that argument is going to be convinced by the other side. JM (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm done arguing in this discussion, if that makes any difference. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Ed and BeanieFan. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on quality, and notability. ITN-worthy, clearly. Opposers unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many of the above (second (third?) tier, insufficient notability, insufficient importance, etc). Supporters unconvincing. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I said I'd stop. But one more reply: let me just tell you that this is absolutely not a third-tier event. That would be NCAA Division II Football Championship (third-tier); with NCAA Division I Football Championship being the second-tier, and this (College Football Playoff National Championship) being the top tier. College football is different than NFL football (it's not really accurate to call them "tiers" in gridiron football; although at the professional level the second-level would probably be the UFL). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect he was referring to its position within the whole American Football hierarchy, where the Superbowl would be the top tier. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BeanieFan11, You really don't need to WP:BLUDGEON quite so many people. You've had your say in multiple places, and it's not going to change my mind. I still oppose this, whether it's second, third or fourth tier: it's not ITN-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reopened as a bad WP:NAC. No explanation given as to the determination of no consensus and the outcome wasn't obvious. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above. Would like to add that we don't nominate other College Championship games, why is the American one suddenly ITN-worthy? TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin comment I've gone through the above comments with regards to notability (as opposed to article quality). We have 15 supports, 2 nuanced supports, 14 opposes, and 1 neutral. Views are expressed backed up by a variety of references to policy and guidance. I don't detect consensus to post.  Schwede 66  22:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it was a bad close then. With the vote count evenly split and decent guidelines quoted by both sides, that's not a consensus as far as it goes. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any non-admin close is bad if the result is close or controversial per WP:BADNAC. Combine that with their lack of experience in general and the lack of explanation for how they determined there to be no consensus. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 12:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The result here is that there really is no consensus to post, if you go by what consensus actually means. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: What are some of the "references to policy and guidance"? AFAICS, the only relevant one might be WP:ITNSIGNIF: Basically, ITN posting is just purely subjective. And seems that votes on it not being worldwide or being domestic should be discounted per WP:ITNCDONT:  —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can someone close this again (I can't as I commented on the Oppose side). I understand why Noah re-opened it, but the result isn't really controversial. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adan Canto

 * Support article looks good and ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denis Walker
Former Rhodesian government minister and Zimbabwean MP  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now There are too many cn tags & as I said in the “POV deletions” section of the article’s talk page, I have concerns about a user removing referenced info for partisan reasons. Support This has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tried to source what I could find and remove the unsourced stuff. I am disappointed to see that happening, I didn't know it was going on.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed to see that happening, I didn't know it was going on. That’s understandable. I only noticed it because I expected an article about a Rhodesian politician to have that sort of content & I looked at the article’s history when I didn’t see that content. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Élisabeth Borne resigns as French prime minister
Quite significant and expected to be apart of a larger cabinet reshuffle in 2024. TwistedAxe  [contact]  23:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to be big news, but how much power does the PM of France have? Does not seem to have the same power that prime ministers in other countries have. Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Our govt heads list has the French president as the position of power, not PM.<span id="Masem:1704758244826:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * France is a semi-presidential system with the concept of cohabitation (government). When the majority in Parliament is an opposition party to the President, that opposition is appointed the government by the President because the government must have the support of the Parliament, and there is some measure of power-sharing. But when the majority in Parliament is on the President's side, like in this case, the President is the leader of the majority coalition and thus largely controls the appointment of officials, so PM has little power and basically serves as a second-in-command. From what I know, at least. JM (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's basically it, the PM is the more powerful one when from the opposition (happened three times, Chirac, Balladur, and Jospin), and otherwise mostly executes the President's leadership. Under Macron especially, PMs have had comparatively little power. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is my general question though - if the PM has little power, then is this a "notable" or ITN event? Or is this akin to a cabinet member getting fired or dismissed? Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably not that notable, but not irrelevant either, although I'm probably biased by it being from my own country in thinking it's more notable than it actually is. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Support. Would be in favor of posting when a new PM is sworn in. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gabriel Attal got the job. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and I'm bringing the popcorn to watch who Macron is picking next. Le Maire? Darmanin? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably Gabriel Attal. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would that make him the youngest Prime Minister until now? Probably an interesting thing that could be added to a potential Attal blurb, if that ever comes to be. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For me it's trivial and not significant. It is more noticeable, I think, that again a woman has not been nominated as a likely PM. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ? A woman was just PM. What do you mean again? JM (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the PM in France's system does not control the executive like the PM in a Parliamentary system does. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it has very important executive powers (mainly in domestic affairs other than international relations and defense). France has a semi-presidential system. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does, but it's de facto under the influence of the president outside of cohabitations. Of all semi-presidential systems we don't really have the most effective PMs... Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rockstone. The   Kip  03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Just a one-line update. Needs a solid paragraph on recent events. Article can use some work in general I think. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. There are multiple unsourced paragraphs. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose The position of prime minister in France is not as stable as in other countries, so changes and reshuffles of governments are not very extraordinary and represent "one more political crisis". I do not think that Borne's resignation is ITN, nor do I think that the appointment of his successor is ITN because the important political figure is the president of the republic. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm actually inclined to believe that there's more than just "the one head of government" in each country whose replacement merits blurbing, even if the secondary figure doesn't particularly influence their respective government. (after all, it's practically an automatic blurb when certain members of royalty change...) And for France, that second seat would be the nominal Head of Government, their Prime Minister. However, this appears to be part of a broader event that extends well beyond just this one office, as also alluded to by the fact that this has basically been a one-sentence update. So at face value, it's notable, but I'm not seeing much direct specific substance to this event. Nottheking (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't very notable in a country where the president exercises the executive power.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Attal as her replacement nominated separately above.  Sandstein   12:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Youngest PM in the history is important news and should be thd focus of the blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wissam al-Tawil
Senior Hezbollah commander. 69.156.166.201 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article feels not much longer than a stub, but it’s adequately-cited. The   Kip  05:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. P. R. Williams
Wales and British Lions rugby union international  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 20:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks very well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Vulcan rocket launches Peregrine
Historical launch notable for two independent reasons. It is the first launch of the brand new Vulcan Centaur rocket, and the first mission on NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program and the first time the US launches a lunar lander since the Apollo era. Jolielegal (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Not just the first successful flight of an entirely-new rocket, it also brings a number of firsts. And that's even before getting to it being the launch of a mission to land on the Moon. I fixed all CN tags I found, and removed an orange-tagged empty section; both articles seem to be in good shape to me, but I'd welcome more looks. Nottheking (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - LFG!! Definitely should be posted as per @Nottheking. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Historic moment in space exploration. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It'll be ITNR when it gets there. —Cryptic 11:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lander would be ITNR if it successfully lands. The launch wouldn't be ITN, but for that it's the first launch of a major new rocket - Vulcan. This will replace the Atlas and Delta rockets. Though given the shear number of Lunar landings the USA has scheduled in the next 12 months, perhaps we need to review that. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unmanned rocket takes off successfully. Nigej (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you aware, User:Nigej that this is the first flight of Vulcan - a major new rocket that will replace Atlas and Delta rockets. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. The problem is that there's much going on in this area at the moment. Plenty of new rockets/missions from many different countries. Let's focus here on missions that actually achieve something significant, not just taking off. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – I support this will be our feature for Vulcan Centaur, which is a lovely article that clearly a lot of work has gone into. I expect we'll replace the blurb with a new one post-landing? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Landing isn't scheduled until late-February.


 * Support - this is more than just a routine launch of a satellite into orbit ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - though the blurb focus should be on the Vulcan Centaur - not the lunar lander, which should be blurbed at the end of February if it successfully lands. Vulcan Centaur is a major new rocket, that will be the workhorse of ULA launches for the rest of decade, now that production has ended on the Atlas and Delta rockets. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Boldly going somewhere we've gone plenty of times before, I guess? DarkSide830 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the launch as this type of rocket series has been used before so not a breakthrough, but do Support when the lander reaches the destination. --M asem (t) 18:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, this series has not been used before: this is the first-ever Vulcan rocket. While it derives some heritage from a few other vehicles, its design is still pretty alien compared to any other rocket to ever have attempted flight. While it shares a 5.4-meter diameter tank size with Delta IV, the differences largely end there, as it's shorter, the panels use an orthogrid (instead of isogrid) structure, and it has a common bulkhead between the oxidizer & fuel tanks instead of an intertank section. (which as far as I can tell is a first for *any* booster stage) Oh yeah, and it's also propelled using liquid natural gas as its fuel; this marks just the second-ever successful methalox rocket to reach orbit. (after the Chinese Zhuque-2)
 * To put it into perspective, it represents just the 9th medium-or-greater (>2,000kg to LEO) launcher family in United States history. (a list that includes Atlas, Titan, Thor/Delta, Saturn, Space Shuttle, Falcon, Antares, Space Launch System, and now Vulcan.) Nottheking (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely the current blurb is untenable, given that it seems that, despite the successful take-off, the mission will fail to achieve any of its important scientific objectives. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above JM (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The news now is that the lander has developed a fault and so may not be able to land. This is generating more coverage now and so it seems best to post this now rather than waiting on its uncertain future. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When the Indian probe failed to land properly on the moon, we posted that. Similarly we should wait until it's fully confirmed that the mission failed as the point to post. If they somehow pull an Apollo 13 and have a successful landing, that would be as important.<span id="Masem:1704758360594:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your reasoning, but I don't remember Apollo 13 having a successful lunar landing... :p Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant it as pulling off an engineering miracle to save the astronauts. M asem (t) 01:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose humans launch a rocket into space (or fail to); specifically, if it's space-related and not INTR, it's unlikely to be significant enough for ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN/R isn't the only reason for things to get posted. After all, that's the case for every blue- and yellow-box nomination here. Being listed in ITN/R (which is due for a revision) merely means it automatically passes the "notability" test, but that doesn't mean things that don't are automatically not notable. This was the first successful orbital launch of a brand-new rocket family, which there is a fairly broad consensus is notable. (and probably strong support to be re-added to ITN/R, which it previously was) But the important thing to note is that "not being ITN/R means it's not notable" isn't really true. Nottheking (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted as there's consensus for this. I've deleted the word "successful" from the blurb. If something happens regarding failed landings, we'll update the hook. Media is currently awaiting protection.  Schwede 66  01:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/blurb: Franz Beckenbauer
Former Bayern Munich and Germany captain Franz Beckenbauer died on 7 January 2024. He was considered to be one of the greatest defenders of all time,  and perhaps one of the greatest players to ever play the sport. Shakya2007 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once ready. NOW we're talking about one of the greatest of this sport. The greatest defender of all time, two-time World Champion (one of only three to win both as player and coach), two-time Ballon d'Or, the list goes on and on. While reputation definitely suffered in the last decade or two, he's still widely revered in Germany and beyond. - CDE34RFV (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Anyone who was considered the best in soccer for that year (except Sir Bobby for some reason), should be put in RD. Keep in mind that he was considered the best in soccer for TWO years. Sadbunny3 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once ready: Beckenbauer's life and achievements speak for themselves (both in a good and a bad way), so he's undoubtedly eligible. However, I should note that many sentences in the first half of the article, as well as many accolades in the "Career statistics" section, still need to be supported by citations... I hope I'll be able to provide some help myself on that front. Oltrepier (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * allocades that "speak for themselves" I'd not sufficient for a blurb. They should be described as part of why the person was significant or important for merit ing a blurb. --M asem (t) 18:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He was called Der Kaiser — the Emperor — for a reason. This does speak for itself, in my opinion. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But nit to anyone not familiar with football. The article should have clear context for that, and it is lacking that now.<span id="Masem:1704750449115:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 21:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, Mario Zagallo. Funny both men with such similar deeds die so near each other in time. 41.58.54.167 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They also look confusingly similar. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when ready Considered one of the greatest footballers of his time, article reflects this, however the article has some ref work to be done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Like I said on the other active football blurb nom, "winning at sports" is not sufficient for a blurb. The systemic bias is strong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Top of the field is what counts. He was top of the field. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Beckenbauer was one of the most important people (not just as a player) in soccer history, so definitely worthy of a blurb. Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Given that Mario Zagallo has been rejected, there is zero reason to blurb Beckenbauer. Their achievements are very similar. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beckenbauer has more achievements than Zagallo, and frankly speaking more famous to most current readers. 85 wiki pages in different languages for Beckenbauer and 51 for Zagallo. They are figures of different level. Beckenbauer is also famous as long term Bauern chief. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As with Zaggallo, the article does not clearly explain how he was an influential player or manager, and hand-waving these claims do not help. Oppose RD at this time due to several missing citations. --M asem (t) 18:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He was transformative figure in German football, and also international. He was even inducted in U.S. football Hall of Fame.
 * He helped German 2006 bid, and World Cup in Germany was a transformative and very big event that changed the way joe football is viewed in Germany. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kirill. Beckenbauer's transformative nature as a footballer, manager and executive/ambassador are the source of the title of this biography (Yes, I know anyone can write a book on anything, but it shows the breadth of his impact). I can't access the NYT homepage to see its billing, but there's a long obituary in the NYT which covers the main points (revolutionary defender, winning manager, controversial ambassador) . Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From New York Times:
 * "A cerebral player whose technical skills and tactical awareness revolutionized his position in central defense, Beckenbauer was nicknamed “Der Kaiser” for his ability to control games and score goals from a position largely charged with preventing them." Kirill C1 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's nice and all, but failing to have a significant section in our Article is a problem. RD blurbs should be very clear why we are promoting this person over the dozens of other deaths happening. Until that stuff is actually written onto our articles, it's hand waving claims of importance even if you can provide links here.<span id="Masem:1704750306315:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will add that there is now a Legacy section which partially satisfies my concern. But the article is still undersourced, so that's still a barrier to posting anything.<span id="Masem:1704752478249:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 22:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb. If we blurb a footballer, this is who we should blurb. Captain of German World Cup winning team, ultimate footballer.
 * He wasn't only a football player, his activities as Bayern Munich chief are very notable. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb old man dies. No disrespect intended. Keyword is former. ITN should not be an obituary celebrating life achievements. JM (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, when someone dies who is world famous, to the point of being not only household name, but the representative of an era, or a certain field, like Tina Turner, Mikhail Gorbachyov, then this person should be blurbed. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Keynote is former" — Gorbachyov, Jim Brown, Henry Kissinger, Sidney Poitier, Jiang Zemin, former Fillipines president, former Angola president dos Santos were all former or retired. It didn't stop them from getting blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that my first ITN appearance was only in September, so the only one I was here for was Kissinger, and I opposed it. If you go back in the archive and look I actually said the exact same thing I said here: "old man dies". Also I said keyword, not keynote, so that's a misquote. JM (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I blame autocorrect? 😉 I would edit it but you already noticed this so don't know ehat to do. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal, just felt the need to point it out for accuracy's sake. JM (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb One of the greatest players, and hugely influential in the game overall. Complaints that another player-manager wasn’t listed are odd: just because there was a mistake in not listing them doesn’t mean we shouldn’t list this one. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I’d also be happy supporting a blurb with both FB and Zagallo mentioned in the same entry. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Probably the most notable player of his generation. His death is widely covered in the news around the world. Shanes (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb If Zagallo doesn’t merit a blurb, no way Beckenbauer does. Also, “one of the greatest” in football is a very broad category. It’s not even clear that he was the greatest German footballer ever because many regard Gerd Müller as such.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to reject one just because someone else who could have been listed wasn’t. I suspect it’s because WP is Western-centric, but that is hardly FB’s fault. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not his fault, but it'd be unjust. I don't think it's a matter of Western-centrism as we didn't post a blurb for Cruyff, who was at least as notable and influential in the sport as Beckenbauer. The main problem is that we have death blurbs in the current form. There are no death blurbs on the German Wikipedia, and the community there didn't make an exception for him.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should have blurbed Cruyff. Period. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - According to the sources in the article, he was one of the greatest players in the history of the most popular sport in the world. Several accomplishments too that are internationally recognized. Comparing him to Zagallo is a mistake because sources widely covered Beckenbauer's career in more detail. Morogris (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb on principle, oppose on quality Beckenbauer is widely considered the greatest football defender of all time, or at least tied for the GOAT with Maldini. As such, he is probably notable enough for a blurb.  However, the article is not yet ready. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is an article in The Guardian entitled Franz Beckenbauer was the complete footballer and a triumphant coach Kirill C1 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. My question here is just how many soccer players do we consider there to be/have been that were given blurbs/are worthy of future blurbs? Can't say I know enough about Zagallo or Beckenbauer, but are these individuals we would rank within the five most important soccer figures ever? Ten? Generally speaking, most fields don't see so many blurbs for their members short of people with truly transformative impact on the world, ie politicians, scientists, etc. Do we really consider either of these men in that category? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not really a football (soccer) fan, but it appears that Beckenbauer is considered one of the greatest defensemen of all time. Unsure about Zagallo. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is quite the opposite for politicians. Every time head of the state dies, we make a blurb. We blurbed Queen Elizabeth II, former Philippines President, dos Santos — former Angola President, Henry Kissinger, Kuwait head, Mikhail Gorbachyov in 2022 and 2023 alone. During that time we only blurbed Pele. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's how it should be. Politicians are more impactful then sportspeople. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of monarchies like Kuwait, it's also due to the fact that they tend to get replaced when dying, which is usually newsworthy. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Transformative player followed by a most successful career as coach. Would also be happy to have a double blurb with Mário Zagallo.  Schwede 66  02:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be unhappy. Even having heard of neither, I can tell these are different people with different stories. Nothing in either article suggests their teams even played each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beckenbauer is the pillar of football, I can't believe anyone has not heard of him.
 * He was very active while at Bayern Munich, very influential. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've heard of Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham and Lionel Messi. These are the Wayne Gretzkys, Michael Jordans and Hulk Hogans of the sport, as far as I and millions of other non-fans know. Even if he was "that damn good", his death doesn't change that and it doesn't make him anything like Zagallo (aside from making them dead, like the other eight notable footballers this year). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a trite and completely incorrect comparison you're making, based on a view of the sport that shows no real understanding of it (this isn't meant as an insult, but Der Kaiser was twice as good as Beckham and a lot more influential than the others when football was a different beast altogether). People have heard of the three you've listed because they are current or very recent players and all are goalscorers (who get much more press than defenders), but I wouldn't vote for Beckham for a blurb simply based on his footballing at the moment. Neither Beckham nor Ronaldo have won the World Cup and Messi only won it once. That's very, very different from Beckenbauer's record. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make any sort of "correct" comparison. It's just that as one of the millions (maybe billions) of people with no real understanding of the sport, these are the three I've heard of. Believe it or not! I'm voting OMD on all of them, if there's nothing more to the stories of their demises. I have no opinion on who's bigger everywhere or why, who would win if they played each other or who deserves higher praise immediately after they can't read it. I just know there's nothing remarkable about this recent death. Wonderful life, apparently, cheers to that much! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about 50% of the people that appear as a blurb (and I haven't heard of about 25% of those who appear), but that's entirely down to my ignorance and shouldn't affect whether they appear or not. "Remarkable death" is not the only criteria for inclusion as a blurb, and Beckenbauer's impact went way beyond his playing career. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I haven't heard of many of the most formerly impactful people on Earth and wouldn't hold that against their fans at a time like this. This is only a sidetrack attempting to assure C1 of how culturally insulated I (and mine) actually am/are; my vote and its reasons are all per JM. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Death blurb requirements are found at WP:ITNRDBLURB: Practically, this means that the death is supposed to be the story, not the life. In the case of this person, the life is the main story. It's up to individual standards to determine whether or not this person has a "major figure" exception and if major figures even have an exception. JM (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beckham was born at the time Beckenbauer was active, Ronaldo and Messi were born afterwards. They are more famous now because their peak was long after his. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The only male soccer players I’ve heard of are Pelé, Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi, Maradona & Beckham. The only female soccer players I’ve heard of are the stars of the U.S. women’s soccer team. Since I’m not a soccer fan, I don’t feel qualified to determine the blurbability of Beckenbauer & Zagallo. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurbless, per JM. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb transformative figure as a player (sweeper). David Beckham was nowhere near world-leading, he was a celebrity Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He is a celebrity, and made soccer cool for a sizable chunk of the New World's youth (not me, though). You kind of had to be here to get it. What did this guy change? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fun fact, Beckenbauer did play in the US, from 1977-80 and '83. I bet Americans in the 70s were influenced by him. In fact, he was inducted into the National Soccer Hall of Fame (in the US). Natg 19 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a Canadian from the '80s, I can't say. All I know is Beckham's movie and later MLS signing were much more influential (though that is a fun fact, thanks). Did you hear Canada might host a World Cup? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. While Beckham is a celebrity, objectively his success is below the success of Beckenbauer, who won about everything one can win and definitely was on "top of his game". Beckenbauer was voted third in the [|World's Best Man Player of the Century] in 2000 by FIFA. Pelé (first place in the list), Johan Cruyff (second) and Diego Maradona (fifth) all received blurbs, so it would only be fitting for Beckenbauer to get a blurb, too. --Clibenfoart (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cruyff was posted only to RD in a heated discussion with many reasonable claims for a blurb because of his overall influence on the game. His omission is another problem to argue that Beckenbauer merits a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, on Cruyff's discussion page it said that a news item with him was featured after his death. In my personal opinion, anyone who is seen as being among the greatest in a very popular field of sport (and football/soccer is the most popular in the world) should be able to get a news item. Of course, the problem is probably that the popularity of sportsmen depends upon the age and the nationality of the person you ask (American football player Jim Brown recieved a blurb last year and is not really well-known in many countries outside of the US). --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is what RD is for. Also currently oppose on quality, plenty of uncited information. Nigej (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave 6 citations, how many do you want? Shakya2007 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've counted 7 paragraphs without a single reference, plenty of other sentences without one, club career statistics unreferenced, international goals unreferenced, plenty of honours unreferenced. Currently this article shouldn't even get to RD. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb very notable player Setarip (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb I came here because I did not see his name on the front page - and I don't really watch football. After reading I am convinced he is a good footballer. My guess is Beckenbauer must be the next important living footballer since Pelé and Maradona are dead? But now he is dead too. Zagallo winning World Cup is interesting statistic. Beckenbauer did this and he did so much more. I confess to not know the name Zagallo. But I know the name Beckenbauer.
 * All the extra articles and other content on Beckenbauer - not obituaries. Some mention his influence not in football and "reshaping" his country.
 * Daily Telegraph
 * "Franz Beckenbauer: A groundbreaking centre-half and football's finest thinker: With the great West Germany captain's death, the game has lost the last of a generation of players who became global TV superstars"
 * Sky News
 * "Beckenbauer: Der Kaiser who changed the perception of Germany" - "We associate Germany as a footballing force because of one man. Franz Beckenbauer became synonymous with success with whatever he touched. Reshaping perceptions of his nation. Redefining how the game was played. A pioneer and visionary. A legend as a player who tasted glory at the highest levels as a manager - unlike contemporaries Pele and Bobby Charlton."
 * Guardian
 * "'Franz in luck': how Beckenbauer's fairytale career inspired Germany: Der Kaiser's footballing journey personified a resurgent country as it looked for unity and to restore its reputation"
 * "Franz Beckenbauer was a player out of time who made football evolve with him: Germany and Bayern Munich could not quite fathom where to play the young Beckenbauer, so he effectively invented a role for himself"
 * "Building an all-time male football XI ... half-a-dozen players who are automatic picks. Lev Yashin, Paolo Maldini, Diego Maradona, Leo Messi, Pelé and Franz Beckenbauer... Beckenbauer is the greatest centre-back of all time. Those in England will shout for Bobby Moore, and in Italy there will be calls for Franco Baresi. But they are just contenders, understudies, sous chefs. Beckenbauer ... combining Franco Baresi's longevity, Moore's intelligence, Koeman's goals, Nesta's bravery (playing the extra time of the 1970 World Cup semi-final against Italy – widely known as the 'Match of the Century' – with a dislocated shoulder and an arm in a sling), Ramos's aggression into one extremely sentient being that elevated both Bayern Munich and West Germany to the top of the sport." No automatic place in the team for Johan Cruyff, Cristiano Ronaldo, Gerd Müller, Zagallo or Beckham - others mention/ask above.
 * "Beckenbauer defined an era as a player and that was just the beginning: Der Kaiser was not without his controversies but his impact on German football after he hung up his boots was unprecedented"
 * "Franz Beckenbauer was the complete footballer and a triumphant coach"
 * "'The best footballer in German history': tributes paid after Beckenbauer's death"
 * "Franz Beckenbauer – a life in pictures"
 * BBC
 * "Franz Beckenbauer: '1966 World Cup final was the toughest game in my life'" - "Former Bayern Munich player Beckenbauer, widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time, died on Sunday at the age of 78."
 * "Franz Beckenbauer: German legend was one of football's most important figures"
 * "Monday Night Club: Remembering Franz Beckenbauer"


 * And these not Germany? All England - I thought they liked themselves to be the enemy of Germany?
 * I saw this too. Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp in 2019 - praise from Beckenbauer like being knighted ("It is just like the king with his sword calling a man 'sir'") and "Beckenbauer is Der Kaiser rather than the king, though when he speaks everyone in Germany listens". Hagesen 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As Germany's biggest footballer of all time, he absolutely deserves a blurb Tommie345 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Blurb Pelé level football player, who additionally was vastly influential after his active career as a footballer. Khuft (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I’m not seeing the case for the blurb and the entry has many missing citations (I’ve just tagged ten or so, and was pretty lax at that.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Admin note this has enough support to be blurbed, but my hands are tied due to the current quality of the article., there's some work here to be done if you'd like to see it go up. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have completely added citations to all paragraphs that need sources, you can go ahead. --<b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b>  03:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did some spotchecks of the new references and with all due respect, it's a bit sloppy. I pretty quickly found three places where the new references did not line up with the untouched text they purported to support. I don't have the time right now to dig deeper to determine if there's more issues. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Me and should have fixed the most glaring issues now; however, I'm struggling a lot to find proper sources to support the paragraph about Civil honours (at the bottom of the page)... Oltrepier (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the box scores at the bottom also need sourcing for their tables (like the one for goals). This is likely where one source can cover the full table but that once source is needed. M asem (t) 13:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! I think the National-Football-Teams profile is good enough to cover all of the statistics. Oltrepier (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted per article improvements. Kudos to, , and for their work in improving the article. Note that in vote count, I'm seeing 16 blurb supports, 2 RD-only supports, and 7 opposes. I'm also seeing multiple strong cases being made e.g. that this player reached the pinnacle of their profession versus at least 2 opposes comparing prior players we haven't posted, which I gave less weight to per WP:ITNRDBLURB. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Acocella
Dance critic for The New Yorker from 1998 to 2019. Thriley (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I’ve expanded a bit and improved the referencing; I think it’s in acceptable shape. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bangladeshi general election

 * Oppose for now on quality but support on notability once improvements are made This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the "Reactions" section is wholly empty, and the article needs improvement otherwise. I'd also recommend noting in the blurb that opposition parties boycotted the election. The   Kip  03:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability once the article improves in quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - Even a small European country's election gets highlighted, so why create biasedness and don't show this? Shakya2007 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the article is not of sufficient quality. Stephen 11:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What Stephen said. I would add that absolutely no one has opposed this because of notability. All opposes are on quality. That's not bias; you should WP:AGF. JM (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for a while until the page gets more updated. Also I would propose a alternate blurb:
 * "Ruling Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina (pictured) wins a fifth consecutive term in a election boycotted by the opposition."
 * — Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support once ready per above. Support blurb by Zeeshan Y Tariq, as this should normally be mentioned as well. - CDE34RFV (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note it is the fourth consecutive term of Sheikh Hasina since 2009 .She had one non consecutive term 1996-2001.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I accidentally missed that fact. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Qualified support - it looks like only the tables at 2024 Bangladeshi general election need to be addressed now. Given their length, it might be best to move them to a sub-article anyway. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Steele
ARCA racing legend who racked up 41 wins in his 15 years of competition. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Found a single CN, and some minor copyediting is needed, but article as a whole is about adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kip (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That lone {cn} tag has been replaced with a footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A bit short but this is good to be posted under RD. Vida0007 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

[Attention needed] RD: Richard Wallace (bishop)
New Zealand Māori Anglican bishop. 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * With only 307 words of prose, this wikibio seems a bit stubby, but it actually exceeds my 300-word threshold and thus long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig found no problems. So, this wikibio seems Ready for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Burke Dales
Canadian professional football player. 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A stubby wikibio (only 311 words of prose) lacking info in this professional sportsman's on-field performance. How did he become a 6-time all-star as listed in the infobox? --PFHLai (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy Yorke Calne

 * Oppose Bio is fairly short and about half-awards, and more importantly, article is orange-tagged for an uncited section. The   Kip  03:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, article has been massively expanded and is now well-cited. Kudos to those who updated it. The   Kip  16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Also performed two world firsts. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 I've removed the uncited parts and am now waiting on you to expand the lead to three good sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Kudos indeed! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good now. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can an admin please take a look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Nicholas Rescher
Thriley (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment German-American polymath, aged 95, no update in body. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready Thirty-six hours later, the prose still doesn't tell us that he's dead.  Schwede 66  18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Alaska Airlines Flight 1282
Article is in good quality. I believe this to be notable as it affects a lot of flights but apologise if this isn't notable to others. Captain Galaxy  18:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, but something like this with no fatalities, even if it resulted in a grounding, just isn't notable enough for ITN in my opinion.  q w 3 r t y  19:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. And let's face it, Boeing MAX planes being grounded for safety concerns isn't exactly a new thing.  Oh and this.  Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - There's no such policy as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. That isn't a reason to oppose. This has definitely been In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Given the history of the max and the impact this grounding is having, this news clearly meets the requirement for posting ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given this is like the 3rd or 4th major problem with the Max, and that we typically do not post major product defects without a significant loss of life involved, this doesn't meet ITN significance. --M asem (t) 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The in-flight incident isn't the significant thing here, the grounding is. However, the flight article is ready, whereas the grounding article is not (although it's close). NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose a minor incident. Not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be better to put the groundings as the target article; however, this incident is not covered enough in the Boeing 737 MAX groundings article, aside from a few bullet points in the Timeline section. This could be considered as ITN (at least that is how I see it) but I believe the grounding of the MAX 9s is the bigger news here. Vida0007 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose a good faith nomination. This incident is too minor; even the plane itself didn't suffer a hull loss.  Bremps  ...  00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per most of the above. A serious safety incident, but not critical or catastrophic. Long term significance is unlikely to be high. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above: Impact of grounding won't be very wide-spread, not notable for ITN.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)  03:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Thankfully a fairly minor incident, unlikely to have long-term implications. The   Kip  03:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Anthony J. Alvarado
New York City School Chancellor from 1983 to 1984. Death reported 5 January. Thriley (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready The article is sufficiently well-sourced, but should be cleaned up and split into sections. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Mário Zagallo
World Cup winner.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb as he was definitely a football legend and one of the most influential people in the history of the sport. He won a record four World Cups both as a player and manager, he managed the Brazilian squad to win the 1970 World Cup, which is considered the most dominant team ever, and he played a decisive role in reviving Brazilian dominance in the 1990s and early 2000s. Furthermore, his death receives front-page coverage with extensive obituaries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once ready per Kiril. - CDE34RFV (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Article is a bit thin but big enough. Needs some work to get up to the required standard. Personally I don't see him as a big enough name for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the fence. I feel like if anyone led England to four world cup wins, they'd be blutbed before I'd even finished my apple crumble with custard. Alf Ramsey won one, and while he was pre-Wikipedia, I can't imagine we'd have not blurbed him. But maybe Brazil winning is more of a run of the mill thing, they're expected to win it. And don't want to open the floodgates too much. Quality needs sorting anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This article is way too short if we're supposed to consider him one of the best players or managers in the world. I would expect a significant amount of legacy and the like to be discussed, in addition to a more lengthy bio. Oppose RD at this time as I see unsourced paragraphs in it. --M asem (t) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The proposed blurb is vague/misleading and unsourced. A casual observer might assume that he "won" four World Cups as a player, however he only played in two of those wins. The article claims that the fourth "win" was as an "Assistant Manager", whatever that means. (If someone is a waterboy for a team that wins four world cups, does that count as "winning" four world cups?) Furthermore, the claim that he was assistant manager in 1994 is unsourced. The claim that "winning four world cups" is a record is also unsourced. Separate to all of the above, I don't think this person is sufficiently significant to warrant a blurb. He's not Pelé or Maradona  or Madonna. Chrisclear (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources saying that he won four World Cups. See this as an example.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That source was not in the article when I read it before posting my comment above. And at the time of writing this comment, the 1994 "assistant manager" claim is still unsourced. Chrisclear (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If something is not in the article, it doesn’t mean it’s not true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be true, but if you want this as a blurbed RD, the article better be of the quality needed to show that. When nominating an RD for a blurb, simple hand-waving "oh, this is important" without reflection in the article won't cut it. M asem (t) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb old man dies. JM (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically true  q w 3 r t y  17:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but not ITN-worthy. JM (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for RD Significant gaps in referencing. Neutral on Blurb -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and RD on quality There's missing refs and the article itself is far too short for blurb-level quality. The   Kip  23:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, oppose blurb on notability - it’d be one thing if he’d been manager for four WCs, and playing in four would be near-unprecedented, but it’s a little less special when it’s neither of those. Anyways, the sports figure blurb standards are high and his article doesn’t show that he meets them imo. The   Kip  05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once ready This is one of the greatest legends in football's history. He won two WCs as a player, one WC as a coach and one WC as technical director. He managed the Brazilian squad to win the 1970 World Cup, which is considered the greatest football national team ever. Saying that he was only "old man dies" is very disrespectful.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an easy way to say that this person has long been retired, and his death does not have the significance of a normal non-death event which would be blurbed. A significant life is not a significant death, and ITN's blurbs should not be obituaries telling us about someone's life, which means that death blurbs should have the same qualifications as a normal blurbs: an article or section for itself, and having the same significance as a normal blurb. (And if you want to call my comment "very disrespectful" without replying to it, feel free to ping me.) JM (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb "Winning at sports" is not a sufficient justification for a death blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready Once the article is up to shape I can support a blurb largely per Kiril but also he was an influential figure in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has no support for this claim. I am sure it is true, but the article better have a detailed section as to why he was influential. Right now, it's hand waving of this claim. M asem (t) 01:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD on quality Zagallo is not on that Pele/Maradona/Messi level as a player, nor is he at the Sir Alex Ferguson level as a manager. To make a comparison with a different sport: Zagallo was not the Gretzky/Bobby Orr of football, nor was he the Scotty Bowman of hockey coaches, so he's not notable enough within his sport to merit a blurb.  Article quality appears to be good enough for RD, though. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? So let's look at the media's opinion shall we - Mário Zagallo, one of the greatest figures in the history of Brazilian football – obituary (The Telegraph). Brazilian World Cup-winning great Mario Zagallo dies aged 92 (RTE). Mario Zagallo: Brazilian football legend dies aged 92 (Sky Sports). Mario Zagallo was everything to Brazil – his record-setting involvement defined the national team (The Athletic). Brazil declares three-day mourning for football legend, Zagallo (PunchNG). He was a hugely influential in Brazlian and World football as a coach as many of the obituaries have stated. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Zagallo is way bigger than Ferguson as a coach. He built the best national team ever and coached them to win a World Cup. Ferguson never ever dreamt about winning a World Cup. He pretty much only coached a single notable team in the Premier League. He also had two World Cup as player and one as technical director. How many people have 4 world cups in their careers? Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 22:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD Not as important to blurb. I do support the RD though. Setarip (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD No reason why this requires a blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this article ready for RD posting? BangJan1999 14:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Er... no? It has orange tags for missing citations. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the "Playing career" section is really thin for such an important figure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make some much-needed corrections and edits throughout the whole page: does it look better now? Oltrepier (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - particularly if a joint one with Beckenbaur - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH? JM (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Not even remotely close. I think you need to read that page before trying to use it in a discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe connecting two unrelated stories for a one-sentence blurb is synthesis of material per that section. JM (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This would literally be a textbook case of SYNTH. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It depends entirely on the wording of the blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think we should be ready to go now, given the recent edits I and others made to the article. what do you think about it? Oltrepier (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies, Support RD InedibleHulk (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin comment I'd be happy to post this to RD once the date of birth is sourced. Please ping me when done.  Schwede 66  18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted (I cited the birthdate). Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Lelyveld
The executive editor of The New York Times from 1994 to 2001. Pulitzer Prize winner. Thriley (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Brief, but well-cited. Just about meets requirements. The   Kip  03:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Battle of Laukkai
Recent development of the completed capture, new article I created (~27000 chars). I expect more updates/changes as the situation/aftermath comes out on reliable sources and gets confirmed. First time, so apologies if new articles don't meet ITN standards.  EmeraldRange  (talk/contribs) 05:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered by ongoing Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom but already covered This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is already covered in ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing Setarip (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing JM (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Derek Draper
147.192.103.42 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support One CN tag that needs attention, but overall the article is in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready By now, it has five CN tags.  Schwede 66  18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Five {cn} tags persist. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Soul
Article may need some editing, but David Soul was best known as Hutch on Starsky and Hutch on TV, and one of the rare actors with a Billboard number one with Don't Give Up on Us, in 1977. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor. [I remember him well from the 1979 version of Salem's Lot which scared the bleep out of me. Kids scratching on windows... shudder.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Don't give up on his RD (he can still pull through)..." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support quality is good Setarip (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Filmreference.com is heavily used for citations, but says it is unreliable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per PFHLai below.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review? Seems to be much better sourced now. Filmreference.com has disappeared, but there are still a few {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple were under "Bibliography", a section which seemed superfluous, as they weren't his publicatiuons, and the sources didn't seem to add anything to the existing inline footnotes. I sourced the reamining ones in his filmography.  Marking Ready.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, well sourced. But we all know the real star was Huggy Bear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, gone ahead and took care with the reference issues and added sources to unsourced statements and the filmography section, with thanks to PFHLai and Bagumba for adding sources to the remaining unsourced films he starred in and removing the (agreed) superfluous "Bibliography" section. I didn't give up on his RD, at least! ~ Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Far from it. Running up that hill, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ~ Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 23:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake aftermath

 * Oppose, the earthquake isn’t ongoing and there’ll always be a slow increase in casualties as the clean up happens. Stephen 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The earthquake rolled off so suddenly, while the article is still actively being updated every day. A very reasonable ongoing request, though it would be an extremely short one. I expect the edits will have slowed down a lot in just a week from now. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barring extraordinary conditions, we usually do not have natural disasters or the long tail of recovery and restoration in ongoing. The Japan quake clearly was notable but it was far from a catastrophe that it could have been for a quake that size, and only a few hundred missing is not a scale that would be considered necessary to keep track of. --M asem (t) 12:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - the ongoing rescue efforts are quite significant with both the death toll and missing account rising by the day. The same logic can basically be applied with the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake. Moctiwiki (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That earthquake had tolls in the 100,000s, where the Japan quake at most will come out to around 1000, most of those injured. Very significant difference. M asem (t) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this is suitable for ongoing. The earthquake itself is not ongoing and daily updates about the death toll aren't enough. Maybe if this was one of the major earthquakes, like Turkey-Syria last year or Japan in 2011, it would be on a different level. Johndavies837 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The earthquake isn't ongoing and although it might be significant, it is not usual for one to post such in Ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. An item shouldn't be ongoing if it isn't currently occurring. And yes, the aftermath is, but the aftermath of any event comes after it ends. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above JM (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The earthquake was already posted. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Christian Oliver
German-born actor and aviation accident victim. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:DCA8:D015:810F:1125 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose  Poorly sourced stub.  Schwede 66  18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glynis Johns
Article seems in good shape. Connormah (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Support very good article. Setarip (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Procedural support meets criteria This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Meets the criteria.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Glynis Johns is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added citations for all the entries in this table. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Up to standard and well-written too. Nigej (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - meets our standards Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment has no citations, but a cursory random sample shows the items sourced in the page's earlier prose.  While the section is a summary of the main article Glynis Johns filmography and discography, WP:CIRCULAR says: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources...Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly I have no opinion on posting this or not.—Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually filmography is moved to a standalone article if there are no references. But here is another case — the article about filmography is well referenced.
 * Two solutions — either delete films in section altogether and just leave reference to other article or insert good looking tables from filmography article to main article. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Article meets standards. Ms. Johns had a long and distinguished career on stage and screen, crossing several generations. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Page is up to standard for RD. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted per consensus above that the article is good enough. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Jeffrey Epstein's associates list

 * Wait, Leaning Support, Event is recent and there hasn't been any updates/reactions and I would wait until there are further responses globally before posting. Article could also be expanded on as it's only start-class, I would also really like to see this article expanded on with reactions and developments from people related to this event.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)  02:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose As the sources on this have clearly stated, this is only people that have had some type of connection to Epstein, and there are some that are not being investigated with any part of Epstein's crimes. While we can document the list, we should be aware that there's going to be a flurry of news of people on this list trying to distance themselves from it, and thus we should keep BLPCRIME in mind, since no one yet has been convicted or arrested on these charges. --M asem (t) 02:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What charges? All we're saying is Michael Jackson is somewhat connected to the guy. That's not illegal. It's also not that important. Certainly could get "messy", among the living. Maybe living royalty and presidents, too, but they're used to it. Tough call. Strong Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether any of these people have done illegal actions, or maybe none are just connected to Epstein, but it is about that as an encyclopedia, we should not engage in gossipmongering particularly when there may be potential crimes involved. Again, we can document the list, but we should not be so over the moon about it as to make it an ITN item, because that feeds this gossipmongering aspect. M asem (t) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For the record, I in no way meant to suggest Michael Jackson was ever connected to underage girls. Not through Epstein or anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, BLPCRIME, and BLPGOSSIP. Some people seem to think that this is a list of people who Epstein connected with underage girls. It is not. The incorrect implication is a major BLP issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose good faith nom per Masem and Muboshgu. There are huge BLP issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose What they said. It's (ultimately) a bunch of documents showing that a dead criminal knew high-profile people. It passes GNG based on immense coverage, but it's only news for gossip, not actual news. (And FWIW, our article is not of a standard for MP inclusion by a long shot) Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on BLP concerns, and also on article quality. Natg 19 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The   Kip  05:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, tending towards support, per Maylingoed. Given the high-profile nature of some of the names, I think we should wait a bit to expand the article further. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is not a client list or anything even close to that. The fact that a rich financier (who is now one of the most notorious criminals) had contact with high-profile people at some point in the past is not notable in itself or evidence of a link to Epstein's sex crimes. The documents also include hearsay, most of the accusations have been known for years and no one has been charged. Not suitable for ITN and I'm not even sure if it should have its own article, it should be merged with Epstein's article. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for concerns about BLP and GOSSIP; willing to reconsider if something more notable occures on the back of it though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. P. S. Uberoi
Indian sociologist. Article requires some small set of updates. Should be ready soon. Basic edits done. Meets hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 PDC World Darts Championship
ITNR article, updated to include final information. OZOO (t) (c) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support (once orange tags are removed) -- it appears this is posted every year; some sections may need additional refs Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it appears this is posted every year... @Kcmastrpc: It's an WP:ITNR item, so posting is a given once consensus is that quality is met. —Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality apart from the citation needed tags listed on there, the semi-final and particularly the final sections need more sources to verify all content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough now to support. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Quality now seems fine - there are referenced prose summaries of every round, including three paragraphs on the final. The text is jargon-heavy but I think it's good enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and principle per above on point 1 but also I really don't think darts is a sport with enough notability for front page This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's WP:ITNR, so front page notability is not in question. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want darts off WP:ITNR, take it to WT:ITN, not here. BangJan1999 17:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Quality is there and it is covered by WP:ITNR. Arguments about whether darts articles are suitable is a discussion for another place. Nigej (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment mentioned on Errors also, but the image of Humphries is low quality. Is there a different picture of him that we can use? Or should we just use a different picture for ITN? Natg 19 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Tetris broken

 * I can't see an update for this yet and I suppose some authentication may be required. But the mainstream media seem to be taking it seriously. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Updates have been made to the NES article and I've added these details. This seems to be the version used for the Classic Tetris World Championship and so has some credence as a recognised format. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I don't think it's really ITN worthy, especially because it is only the NES version of tetris. Also, article doesn't appear to have this in it. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - This specifically relates to Tetris (NES video game) and not to Tetris as a whole. This seems to be receiving widespread media attention, although saying it was "broken for the first time" is an unusual way to word the blurb. No opinion on whether or not this is ITN worthy. Probably makes for a better video game related ITN blurb than whatever industry backpatting awards usually show up. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there's no in-game endpoint and so the achievement is pushing the game to the point that the software can't cope any more. The feat seems fairly well understood but has only been achieved by AI previously. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

*Wait until article is updated, Leaning Support: This story will likely further develop, Article needs to be updated to accommodate this event. This is notable as Tetris is a very popular game worldwide, not to mention that it took 34 years until someone has beaten it. mAyLiNgOeEd  (Talk to me!)
 * Oppose: Per other comments; This is only for the NES edition and there is not much merit to "beating the game" because of a technical limitation of the NES. Not notable given additional context.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)  20:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose More trivia than anything else. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both Enby and Vetrenarisisum. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggestions "Videogame" should be two words, "broken" should be "beaten", "they" should be "he", "reached" should be "reaches" and the picture should be an NES screenshot. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely not. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. It was just one version of Tetris, and more to do with a coding glitch than anything else. I think the media are kind of getting the wrong end of the stick here. Not ITN-worthy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be moreso a technical limitation of the 8-bit NES. 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose while I'd want to see more video game stories on the main page, thus is just a technicality due to limitations of the NES hardware as others have pointed out. --M asem (t) 21:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tetris is my favorite game, but this is way too trivial for ITN. (And as others have said, is only relevant to one version and due to a glitch.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose A teenager "beating" a 40 year old game by using a technical limitation is not news  q w 3 r t y  21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that a teenager is playing a 40-year-old game seems remarkable in itself. How many other classics have such a timeless following? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Kerman bombings
Major bombing, believed to be a terrorist attack. Current death count of 73 103, at least 150 injured. Improvements to the blurb are welcome. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 13:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support upon article expansion. One of the deadliest attacks in Iran in decades. 69.156.166.201 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable due to large casualties, unusual for Iran and one of the most deadly attacks in Iran in recent times. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article could be expanded slightly more but apart from that, it's very notable due to the high death toll. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, Very notable event, deadly bombing that happened in Iran. Could wait a bit longer before posting to monitor any recent developments.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)  14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Big attack on Iran. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support But it says at least 103 people killed, and the blurb says 73. Might have to wait for correct casualties or change blurb. Setarip (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, updated! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * • Support It is a notable event but wait until it is clear whether this is a terrorist attack or not, even though deputy governor said so , wait for ministry of interior to say so. Harvici 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support but suggest waiting a few more hours for details to emerge and settle down before posting. Article is sufficiently sourced.<span id="Masem:1704294112350:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Due to impact, update hook when motives are known.  Bremps  ...  15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above ❤History  Theorist❤  15:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Support Article is still coalescing information. I assume it'll be ready in a few hours. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . El_C 15:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You forgot a period at the end. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how notable or true this is but i am seeing news articles suggesting this was done by Israel, so the question will arise over whether this deserves its own blurb or should just be treated as part of the Israel Hamas war ongoing. Not sure if I have a position on the matter, and I certainly don't care to contribute to a discussion on it, other than to bring it to y'all's attention. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That has no bearing on it being worthy of a blurb. El_C 15:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Death count increased to 211+ (source) Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * i24 is not a good enough source to base that claim on—even hours later now, gold-standard news outlets are still reporting that there were "at least 103". Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably worth wikilinking "assassination" to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, it's an impressive-looking article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 20:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added Stephen 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Daesh has claimed responsibility and nobody's disputed it; should we add that to the blurb? The   Kip  22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very important. I've written alt2 to include that. Mentioning the ceremony takes up a lot of space & the fact that the bombings were committed by IS is very important, especially because there has been a lot of speculation as well as false accusations. X2023X (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ISIS mention ✅. El_C 09:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion - the blurb now reads as if Daesh claiming responsibility is the story, rather than the bombings themselves. My personal suggestion would be something like:
 * "In Iran, at least 84 people are killed by an Islamic State bombing during a ceremony commemorating the assassination of Qasem Soleimani."
 * The  Kip  09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅. El_C 10:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Karrer
Pioneer of German (Kraut)rock and world music, playing guitar, violin, saxophone, oud ... - Filmpreis with band Anom Düül II. Was a rather stubby article, that's why it took so long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * COMMENT I appreciate your work on the article, but oppose its inclusion for now. I agree that the general criteria for inclusion of a recent death are met, but have some concerns about quality. Below, I will split those into separate comments to for a simpler structure. FortunateSons (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. The use of Strawberry Bricks as source isn’t great. Is that really a WP:RS? FortunateSons (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2. The fifth footnote links to a 24 page pdf. Is there way to source it in way that allows for easier verification? FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3. I am unsure about some other footnotes whether or not they comply with WP:RS, could you provide some context for the following sources: progarchives.com,  rocktimes.com,  materiali-sonori.myshopify.com. Particularly the last one isn’t great, if you ask me? FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4. this is probably subjective, but 5 paragraphs of text is still pretty short. Is there other significant information with which the article can be extended, or is this all that can reliably sourced? FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My time is limited, my knowledge of the kind of music very basic which includes knowledge about sources. I believe that he should appear, and appreciate all help.
 * 1. The Strawberry was for a while the only source for his death, and I try to avoid to remove the work of others.
 * 2. I'll check that now.
 * 3. I keep being surprised about the need to source recordings, - if they exist, it should hardly mater which source says so.
 * 4. This is subjective, - back to intro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed 1. and added 3. to the talk page. I think everything else is at least good enough for ITN, thank you for the good work! FortunateSons (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The page number is 14. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article could be made longer by including more from the rather detailed one about his band, but is that what we'd want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re right, it would probably be mostly filler. If you find something, that would be great, but otherwise probably fine as is FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * support! Per discussion above. FortunateSons (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matisyahu Salomon
One of the world's foremost mashgiach ruchanis operating out of the largest yeshiva in the western hemisphere.  Stony Brook  babble 22:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Citations look good and article seems balanced 68.192.102.58 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: 2 more CN tags.  Spencer T• C 04:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added references and removed an unsourced sentence.  Stony Brook  babble 09:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Claudine Gay
Prestigious university president who was appointed by the university with much fanfare resigns after being accused of anti-semitism and plagiarism. Making international headline news, shortest tenure in the role in the nearly 400 year history of the school 24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you suggestion in spirit, but please moderate your language, particularly insofar as it cannot be verified with sources compliant with WP:BLP FortunateSons (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * fixed --24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot better, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * who? this is not worthy of itn, shitty ass blurb gtfo 2601:58A:8E7E:C300:1411:DF33:5D74:9A03 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, tempest in a teapot, university presidents are nothin' but cheerleaders and fundraisers, and I don't see how somebody getting fired is ITN-level material. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support significant media attention, political and academic backlash, and it is reported by many news sites, including many national and international reliable sources. FortunateSons (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just a university, not a geopolitical authority or anything. Small impact. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is one of the best ranked universities in the world. FortunateSons (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Technically, tied to the situation in the Gaza strip, but also typically we would not post the resignation or retirement or other departure of the top person in a company or institution, unless there were serious ramifications that would come with that. --M asem (t) 13:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose trivial. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - National story with little or zero impact outside its own jurisdiction.BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was reading the instructions above ITNCDONT and it says "Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." so I guess your comment is invalid. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment mentioned the jurisdiction, not the entire US. You can't just decide that replies opposing your proposal are invalid, that's bad form. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support We don't know what the ramifications are going to be, and any speculation here within is pure WP:CRYSTAL. This story is making headlines worldwide and is currently the subject of many emerging editorials and opinion pieces. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN does not consider whether the story us headline news or not or widely it is being reported. And if there are no clear immediate ramifications reported as part of the story, then it is CRYSTAL to suggest there will be any.<span id="Masem:1704301244563:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Someone gets fired at a prestigious university, not ITN-worthy. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this unworthy event. Not important at all for the world. Setarip (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Zvi Zamir
Former director of Mossad. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:51E3:903B:140B:3B5E (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs a lot of work done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sartaj Aziz
Former finance minister of Pakistan, orange tag to fix but that should be doable. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 17:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and I've done some work in fixing the sourcing issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is generally good-quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Bowman
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose We dont even know whether or not he died in 2024 Setarip (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , his death was reported today. Irrelevant of what day it was, this is eligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently he died on Dec 27. But Muboshgu is right. His death was announced today, thus this is RD eligible. Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD/blurb?: Saleh al-Arouri
Was a leader in Hamas. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is pretty good. Setarip (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on it being a blurb? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb An important figure from Hamas, his assassination article is good quality as well. Setarip (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can we blurb it? We blurbed assassination of ISIS leader. And it is the first major figure from Hamas who was taken out by Israel. Kirill C1 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was mulling with the idea of a blurb as well. We did blurb Qasem Soleimani's death. Plus the Assassination of Saleh al-Arouri article doesn't look that bad as well. I'd support blurb TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb. Qasem Soleimani was the head of the IRGC while Saleh is merely the second-in-command of Hamas's political branch, which relatively speaking isn't that significant. It was a similar deal with ISIS since Kirili CT brought it up; we posted when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed, but not when his many deputies were drone striked. When the actual head gets assassinated, then it should be posted Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support on blurbing Assassination of Saleh al-Arouri. It's an appropriate level of detail for an ITN feature, though not the most impressive subject as per Mount Patagonia above. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Important figure within Hamas - afterall he was the Deputy Chairman of the Political Bureau, and the founding commander of one Hamas' military wing. He is more than just the "second in command" of Hamas. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a key leader of Hamas, no practical effect on the Gaza strip conflict. --M asem (t)
 * Oppose blurb on account of not knowing what actual effect al-Arouri's death with have on the conflict. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem/Mount Patagonia. The   Kip  19:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Not just the deputy political leader of Hamas, but a founder of its military wing. —M3ATH (See · Say) 07:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Qaiser Rashid Khan
Ainty Painty (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub and has not been updated to reflect his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now updated. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking the article badly needs more secondary sources, but it would barely surpass RD's low quality bar if the close parroting of the primary source profile didn't have me concerned. ("received his secondary education", uses the exact same cadence as the source in that section, "took oath as" farther down) Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen Valero
Valero became the first woman to ever represent Spain at the Summer Olympics in 1976, and won two consecutive IAAF World Cross Country Championships in 1976 and 1977. Oltrepier (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Comment: I'm currently working on the article to "de-stub" it and bring it to a good level. Oltrepier (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I'll be damned. Great job at expanding the article. Looks solid. Gonna be bold and marking it as ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks great. Congrats for the job Oltrepier. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Japan Airlines Flight 516
A Japan Airlines Airbus A350 aircraft collided with a Japan Coast Guard Dash 8 aircraft while landing at Tokyo Haneda Airport. Everyone on the A350 survived (some are injured), while 5 out of 6 people on the Coast Guard plane died. Both planes are reportedly destroyed and this is JAL's first fatal accident since 1985. It was also widely reported by almost every major news sources. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality concerns . We still need a flight/accident section. Otherwise I’m feeling OK for support. S5A-0043 Talk 10:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, since reports suggest a collosion with a SDF plane, I say we wait until that’s confirmed before we go ahead with ITN. S5A-0043 Talk 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article will be ready to go on In The News when it is a bit more fleshed out.  Bremps  ...  10:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we eventually find significant consensus to post the blurb, I'd suggest to edit the final part to avoid confusion: according to the latest reports, all of the passengers and staff members had been evacuated before the plane caught fire, whereas the only casualties were registered within the crew of the Japan Coast Guard aircraft. Oltrepier (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is now known that all of the passanger on the larger plane survived - it is the 5-to-6 crew of the coast guard plane that are dead or yet accounted for. This could have been a lot worse but in terms of what actually happened it was a close call. --M asem (t) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support hull loss of a large passenger jet of a major airline makes this notable. 2A02:908:676:E640:A968:92D3:DBA4:F952 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - runway/mid-air collision, double hull loss. Article in good enough state to post. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, it could have been a lot worse but thankfully it wasn't. However, it is worldwide news top story. Collision involving a full passenger airline leading to fatalities and two complete hull loss. -- KTC (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per above, but I stand on my previous comment: we need to avoid confusion in the blurb. Oltrepier (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oltrepier, I've rewritten Alt Blurb and made Alt Blurb III mention the deaths are specifically from the JCG aircraft. How about that? 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's better, well done! Oltrepier (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Top news around the world, most significant aviation accident in Japan for nearly a decade, most significant aviation incident involving a civilian wide-body airliner since at least 2022. This is unquestionably notable and the article is in good enough shape for posting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a policy. This is getting a massive amount of coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability: Historic accident for Japan Airlines, currently making international headlines globally. However, article could be significantly improved on before posting.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜)
 * What specifically do you think could be improved? Is there something in particular that is missing? Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Per above, a serious aviation incident that surpasses the bar for inclusion on ITN. There is no death count requirement here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. I tweaked alt 3 to try to avoid repetition. Please feel free to improve it further. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate to be nitpicky but there was an update to the picture of JA13XJ (the Japan Airlines aircraft involved in the crash) on the article page, may i suggest to use this here aswell? TrainSimFan (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning if that photo was acceptable to upload here. That photo was taken from the "Jetphotos" website and wonder if it's copyrighted or not. From what I searched, Jetphotos does not license any of the the aircraft images under the Creative Commons policy. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 17:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That photo is indeed a copyright violation, I've nominated it for speedy deletion on Commons. Someone else beat me to removing it from the article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: The remains of JA13XJ is finally posted at the Commons that isn't copyrighted. Could I request the current image of the plane replaced with this? 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 08:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Midori No Sora I think you should try WP:ERRORS. It seems that someone beat you to it. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. The image was awaiting media protection when I've requested this here. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Stabbing of Lee Jae-myung
 Bremps  ...  03:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning towards oppose — Reporting from The Chosun Ilbo suggests Lee will survive the attack. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded with the info available. While it appears that Lee will survive the attack, I believe it's worth blurbing per Chrisclear and that this event is making headlines. Also an assassination attempt like this on a high-profile figure is rare (no matter if it's successful or not). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. Hard to imagine someone making this argument if something similar happened to Trump. Or even Ron DeSantis.  Bremps  ...  12:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait as per elijahpepe. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoughts now? Article has been expanded and it looks like Lee survived the attack. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The article seems to be in good quality now, and we have the update. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is the leader of the opposition party of a country, and the presumptive candidate in the next presidential election. Whether or not Lee Jae-Myung survives the attack (and I hope he does) is irrelevant. Presumably if Hillary Clinton had been stabbed in the neck in 2016, or Mitt Romney had been stabbed in the neck in 2012, those incidents would be overwhelmingly supported for a blurb by a large number of (American) editors. The only difference is that this incident took place in South Korea to a South Korean politician, and not in the US to an American. Chrisclear (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, pending article expansion. Leaning support. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanded article with the current info available. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, this is najor news. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb II (which ive added), it's certainly in the news but I think it's important to clarify that he survived the attack, which it looks like he's doing. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks he will, but there's never any guarantees. We can put "hospitalized" or something similar that implies he is still being treated.  Bremps  ...  08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, though article needs expansion. Notable whether he survives or not. A major politician gets stabbed in the neck is big news. Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is rather short and barebones. We're not really telling our readers much of anything. Perhaps wait until more is known. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanded article with info available. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Excellent work, the article looks in really good shape now and gives lots of details and background information. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A high-ranking political figure being, let's face it, the target of an assassination attempt is blurb worthy in my mind. Article is rather short, but I'm positive it'll be expanded once more info is known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is barely more than a stub. I imagine that in the next 12-24 hours more information will be known, and so this article can then be properly expanded to make it a front page-worthy article. Once that's done, consider this a support vote. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanded article with the current info available. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now good expansion, thanks. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability and quality, article looks good enough now. AryKun (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - quality looks good enough. Notable. BabbaQ (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Quality and notability are both there to me. S5A-0043 Talk 14:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb III quality is good enough to me Setarip (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Niklaus Wirth
gobonobo + c 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has several citation tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Addressed "citation needed" tags. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article seems in good shape now. Skynxnex (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Basdeo Panday
Former Trinidad and Tobago PM. Ktin (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has several citation tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Frank Ryan
1960s American football player. Needs work. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs citations. Has orange tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting career after football. Much of the prose still in need of sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Israeli judicial reform struck down
I can see arguments both for posting (sheer notoriety of the reform attempt and protests, was blurbed (I think?)/ongoing-d before) and against (short article update, internal political matter). Figured I'd float it here nonetheless. The  Kip  23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If this is to be blurbed, I feel like it should succintly specify what made the bill so controversial in the first place. Does anyone here disagree? Kurtis (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If this case really is that notable, it should have it's own article rather than just occupy one section in a different article. Edge3 (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support individually notable resolution of one of the biggest political/legal stories of the past year. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, the bill (and the large protests against it) have been extensively covered globally. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The usual gridlock that you get when different branches of a government are dominated by opposing parties. As the judges' opinions were quite individual and varied and the overall result was close (8-7), this seems unlikely to settle the power struggle between the Knesset and the Court. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with a better blurb While it may not change internal disputes in practice as much as would seem ITN-worthy, the fact that it got such global ongoing news coverage despite [everything else] makes it notable on public interest grounds. Also in the item's favour is that it's slightly less stark than death and disaster, which is all the box is at the moment (this is not a reason in itself, just a comment). As has been mentioned above, the blurb needs some context to convey this, or users could use it as precedent for nominating every internal bill decision. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sidney M. Wolfe
American physician and the co-founder and director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, a consumer and health advocacy lobbying organization. Thriley (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange-tagged for citation issues. The   Kip  22:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Works section could use more ISBN. Three {cn} tags remaining in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issues raised. Thriley (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I have fixed the citation and ISBN issues. Thriley (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RD: Peter Magubane
South African photographer and anti-apartheid activist. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some cn tags and lead could be expanded to reflect more of his work/how they had an impact. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The prose currently has a handful of {cn} tags. The string of bullet-points following the publication list is largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopia–Somaliland relations

 * Support – The first recognition of a country by a UN member state is huge news. DecafPotato (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until formal recognition is granted, which is the bigger story here imo. For now, it’s just an agreement to do so, but assuming it happens the first formal recognition of a state by a UN member is front page-worthy. The   Kip  23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Kip; let's wait until official recognition is granted, at which point I will support. If nothing else, it'll have pretty seismic ramifications for Ethiopian-Somali relations. Kurtis (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, Wait, Comment In theory, Ethiopia can now use the port of Berbera, not the whole port city. And other ports, too, along 20km of coastline. This could be way bigger for the state most of us already recognize as arguably landlocked than the one which still unquestionably sounds like a land of Somalia's. That's the thing, though. Could be big for both. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, major development for Ethiopian influence in the region, and down the line recognition for Somaliland. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 02:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This doesn't seem like a major change but a small step towards recognition of Somalia. Not the type of country-country relation we'd post. --M asem (t) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not recognition of Somalia (an already-recognized UN member state), it’s recognition of Somaliland (an as-yet-unrecognized breakaway state). The   Kip  02:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also don't think you fully grasp how many more countries a country can "have relations" with if granted access to even the surface of the world's interconnected oceans. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think the whole Somaliland recognition thing buries the lead here. Yeah sure, this could lead to recognition of Somaliland eventually. Or it could not. We really have to wait and see with that. I think the bigger story here is that Ethiopia is getting direct unrestricted port access for the first time since Eritrean independence in the 1990s, completely bypassing the Port of Djibouti and its heavy fees. I think this carries major implications for the whole Horn of Africa region beyond the surface-level political aspect. Curbon7 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Eritrea broke away, the landlocked status of Ethiopia has been a massive issue in the region. East Africa is becoming a geopolitical hotspot, this is a very notable development in that. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until recognition, which would be a huge change as Ethiopia would be the first UN member to formally recognise the country; that's the main story here, not the port usage. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you please elaborate on why you think Ethiopia getting port access is not a major aspect of this story? Curbon7 (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready – Significant, but the relations article is extremely barebones and only got a single-line update. If we had a few paragraphs on this agreement, then we'd have something good to show to our readers. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Pretty big news, this will have major effects on African geopolitics. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - I would strongly support putting this up if formal recognition materializes as a result of this deal. Indeed, we need to wait and see whether the deal involves some sort of true sovereign lease (cf. Guantanamo Bay), which would be ITN-worthy in its own right, or is simply an agreement for Ethiopian participation in a port project and an overseas base, which would be more prosaic. --Varavour (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, already as is this development has been massive in relation to both Somaliland's external affairs, Ethiopia's trade and Ethiopia-Somalia relations, which in turn makes it very relevant to the entire Horn of Africa region. It's already geopolitically significant enough to blurb. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait It's something that has not happened yet. When Somaliland actually does gain recognition from Ethiopia, then post.  Bremps  ...  06:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose one sentence is not enough for ITN. JM (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Japan earthquake
Two major Tsunami warnings issued. It is getting significant international coverage. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Biggest earthquake since Fukushima. Really bad news.s PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait – No indication of significant impact yet besides tsunami warnings across the Japan Sea Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning towards support This is already the headline of several news agencies around the world, but I think we should wait for further reports to get a clearer picture (with regards to the scale of this event). Vida0007 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait We need reports about the impact of the Tsunamis first, before we can make any assessment of the importance of this event. Nigej (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. I've proposed an altblurb. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean support, wait for now Blurb is too general, altblurb could be worked on a bit more. Impact of earthquake and tsunami has not been fully accessed as of now, but is worth a post due to the significance. Tofusaurus (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Casualty and damage reports seem to be nonexistent or relatively minor at the moment, and the tsunami has been relatively weak. While geologically interesting I would say we have to wait and see if any further reports of damage comes up - a 7.5 has less than 1% of the energy of the Fukushima quake, after all. Juxlos (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - A 7.5 magnitude earthquake is considered a major earthquake. However, blurb is too general. Setarip (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the biggest news to possibly come out in 2024. Kampolama (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is there, and while the number of fatalities and casualties are low for how big this was, it was unusual to have occurred in the Sea of Japan (rather than from the Pacific Ocean), where the country is not as well set up for tsunamis or the like. --M asem (t) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support but wait until more info regarding fatalities and the like is received.  q w 3 r t y  15:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait/Oppose, obviously. Can we actually wait for impact reports to come in before we demand a blurb for a natural disaster be posted? And as of right now, we have all of three fatalities reported, so as things stand that;s a no from me. This probably will rise to a higher fatality level, but as things stand we should not be posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support regardless of whether this is a comparative blip or Fukushima II: SOJ Boogaloo; definitionally a major earthquake. — Knightof  theswords  18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support major earthquake, and ITN has been really slow over the holiday season as the oldest entry is from December 18th. (Unironically, that entry is an earthquake.) Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Good article on a natural disaster, in the news around the world, there is no "minimum death" requirement that needs to be met. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Congo elections
The election seems to have been significantly chaotic and disputed but such opposition is more democratic than none at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article is a long way off from front page-level. The   Kip  08:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Significant improvements in article quality would be needed to make this front-page-worthy. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article quality needs to be improved Setarip (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

BRICS Expansion
BRICS expands on January 1st. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we mention the rejection from Argentina? Unnamelessness (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not significant and not in the news. That a hapless state like Argentina can't see any point in joining this overblown acronym seems quite telling.  The article is a bloated and disorganised mess too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?Wait until,January 1 when it takes effect and besides ,this was extensively covered in the news when this was announced during the latest BRICS summit 5.193.27.221 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's being covered by several major news outlets, and I would consider the expansion of an intergovernmental organization by a factor of 2 pretty significant.  q w 3 r t y  15:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just Andrew being contrarian. The   Kip  06:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Being covered pretty heavily in the news, and is significant in and of itself.  q w 3 r t y  15:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is nowhere close to being ready to post. No comment yet on the significance, but the article must be improved first. --M asem (t) 16:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, expansion of a major international organisation, no comment on article state. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose what is in the news is Argentina not joining, which seems hardly notable. The quality of the article is also not there. 2A02:908:676:E640:7830:DBEE:B63:525E (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The others who are joining has been covered extensively before and was advised to post this on the 1st of January when this actually takes effect 2001:8F8:1473:923D:6862:3256:F94F:6E4E (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support If we can regularly post the expansion of NATO, then we should most definitely post the expansion of BRICS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NATO expansion has far greater geopolitical impact and receives far greater coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support due to how extensively it is being covered in the news Lukt64 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment other than the participation in an annual summit, does this membership mean anything? BRICS does not have an equivalent to NATO's Article Five mutual defense pact. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It gives you entry to the BRICS Games... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They have a development bank, a reserve agreement and plans for a common currency that would have to largely replace the US dollar in international trade. NATO is a toy compared to BRICS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bank is rather separate now as it has non-BRICS countries as members, such as Bangladesh, while Russia's participation is currently limited due to "sound banking principles". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bank is fully operated by BRICS, so it’s certainly an affiliated institution. It’s just that they allowed non-BRICS members to join.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that bank is not operated by BRICS because BRICS doesn't seem to have a permanent staff or secretariat. The bank is a separate institution with its own staff while the BRICS countries are its main shareholders.  So, BRICS seems to be modelled on the G7 and G20 which likewise started in an informal way and whose main focus is the summits which are organised by member countries in rotation.  These associations are thus different in structure from institutions like the EU, UN and Commonwealth who do have a permanent staff and secretariat. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a separate institution, but it’s controlled by the BRICS countries, which have voting power and appoint its president on a rotational basis. UN organisations operate in the exactly same way. IMF Executive Board is not elected by the UN General Assembly, but it doesn’t mean the IMF is not a UN organisation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. The   Kip  06:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible support - As I promised 126 days ago. BRICS is a highly notable international organisation, especially in times like these. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality Very little in the article about the actual expansion. Nigej (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Setarip (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – Though I also think we should consider a blurb that mentions Argentina's rejection of membership, as it seems to be a key part of this BRICS expansion. DecafPotato (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb which mentions Argentina declining to join BRICS. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether a rejection of membership or declining to join, it seems clear to me that Argentina has no part in this BRICS expansion. The other five clearly do, for the exact opposite reason. Anyway, it doesn't need a new sentence and unique tense; adding, and Argentina declines. is enough, if anything must be said of the non-factor. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a serious organization. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - A look at the article shows me that it needs work, as noted above, but that fact is not a deal-breaker, and that the BRICS expansion is clearly notable and In-the-News-worthy. Im OK with either blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose if anyone on this planet thinks that an organization where India and China have to work together to do anything will ever do anything, I have several bridges I'd like to sell them. AryKun (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support, but oppose due to quality issues This seems important enough to post, but the article's quality isn't good enough to post it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Steamboat Willie in the public domain
Obviously, this should not be posted until Jan 1 ticks over. The article does need sourcing improvement before it can be posted, but it does have a section dedicated to this copyright aspect, which has been one of those things that copyright experts have been anticipating for years and the fact Disney did not try to extend its copyright (though there's other protections around this). --M asem (t) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Stand in line WP:TFP has been planning and working on this for some time and so should get first crack at it. Maybe ITN can blurb it after that. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If TFP will be hosting this on Jan 1, then that absolutely makes sense to leave it there and not duplicate to ITN.<span id="Masem:1703968054578:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once ready/once POTD is posted. I can't think of a film more historic and ground-breaking than this. The fact that Disney does not prevent this film from entering public domain is also pretty surprising, as normally, film studios try to keep their films copyrighted for as long as possible. Definitely an ITN event (also given that notable media talks about this) in my eyes. - CDE34RFV (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Let the POTD folks do it first. Afterwards, would be happy to support.  q w 3 r t y  18:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't "news" in the sense of what ITN posts. The update to the article in the copyright section is minimal. It is also unclear to me from that section whether or not Disney's use of Steamboat Willie as a logo is allowing them to extend copyright, or why they didn't try. POTD is perfect for this case (assuming it really does enter public domain). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They remain to have the trademark on the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey, but they no longer have copyright after Jan. 1. This is very clear from the sources.<span id="Masem:1703968014406:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine I'm not the only person who is unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright, and SchroCat's point below further hardens my oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think I’m right in saying that it’s not been in copyright in some other jurisdictions for a while, and it coming out in one territory is hardly news. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose another "hook" news story. Every year a lot of stuff goes into the public domain in different countries.  This specific example has been talked about a fair amount because of Disney's lobbying for the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act.  But it is not "news". 217.180.228.138 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't news. It's something that was always going to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So are solar and lunar eclipses (which are ITNR) not newsworthy because it's something that was always going to happen. — Knightof  theswords  01:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Solar and lunar eclipses really aren't newsworthy, IMHO. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not news now, has been known for some time. We're already featuring it at POTD which is quite sufficient. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)