Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2023

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

(Posted) RD: Angus Cloud

 * Weak oppose I feel that his career section could be expanded a bit more. I understand his career began in 2019, but he had some upcoming projects, appeared in music videos and commercials and had some minor roles in other projects that could be discussed in this section. Support I've expanded the career section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality Article could use some expansion, and a few of the IMDb citations need to be replaced. I expect some decent upcoming coverage of his short career as the likes of Variety, Rolling Stone, People, Hollywood Reporter... report on his death. Mooonswimmer 22:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the career section can naturally be expanded. Article is on the shorter side, but ready (w/o orange tag). Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * & I've expanded the section with as much info as possible. I'm sure once his roles in his last three posthumously films are revealed, it can be further expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is as good as the article can get probably. Sufficient in terms of sourcing, length and depth. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Stats FYI, this was the top read article yesterday – even more views than Pee-wee and Sinéad O'Connor. So, this is a major death but the subject's name may be quite unknown to many as he didn't have a long career and I'd never heard of him.  Just posting the name in the RD ticker doesn't seem adequate as information. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is short, but good enough. Ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the lead is going to say "best known for his portrayal of Fezco in the HBO television series Euphoria", the article should have a few more sentences on 1) who is the character Fezco 2) what makes his portrayal notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added some info on Fezco, but I didn't add too much because I would feel that info would be better suited in the Euphoria article.
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Street

 * Oppose on quality per the usual reason for wrestler articles - it’s unfortunately woefully under-cited. The Kip (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tightened it up with more sources.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Second to last paragraph of the career section is still wholly unreferenced. The Kip (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Added some for that.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems good to go now. Changing vote to Support. Great job - wrestler articles usually get handicapped by refs, so it’s nice to see one that’s fully sourced. The Kip (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Several dead sources, cn tags and a better source needed tag are listed. Article still needs some ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, thanks for the sourcing C of E! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Championships and accomplishments has some cn tags. Some of the sources are deadlinks and one them leads to a Japanese house market website that has nothing to do with Street? One of the deadlink is used heavily in the article as well. Once addressed, I'll happily support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed the sourcing (that heavy one, they had just changed websites) and removed some I couldn't find sources for.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article now appears sufficient in terms of length, depth and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I viewed the article. I guess I'm still seeking a credible explanation for exercises such as these and how they relate to "article quality". The BBC has published a number of high-quality pieces on Street over the past decade or so. Those sources and many interesting facts revealed therein are largely absent from the article, while the usual fanboy wrestling website pablum is found to absolute excess. Is it really an example of "article quality" when quality sources are avoided? When viewed in contrast to what's missing, the mention of Jimmy Savile has everything to do with Jimmy Savile and really nothing to do with Adrian Street. Should this mean that WP:COATRACK is meaningless anymore? You've rejected posting articles in the past for having that very same problem. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently 4 {cn} and 1 {fv} tags. Please add more footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed the sourcing as best as I can. No more tags. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thank you for the new footnotes, Monarch Of Terror. --PFHLai (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now blurb it! Just kidding. For the record, though, we did blurb Bowie's bio and Bowie did (some say) copy Adrian Street... InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, Billy. This nom is not the greatest wikibio. Not sure if it's bad enough to reject or pull it, though. This section will be archived soon. You may want to ask more, if you like, at ITN talk. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Ashes series

 * Support article looks pretty well updated and sourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note ENGVAR altblurb added. Also note that the man of the series was Chris Woakes, for an alternative image (File:Chris_Woakes_2022.jpg). Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks up to date and I would also support the image of Woakes as he was the player of the series and the Compton–Miller Medal.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments Agree that Australian captain is a strange image choice; it would need to be mentioned Woakes is English if using the image of him. I also suggest a combined blurb with the simultaneous 2023 Women's Ashes series (also drawn with Australia retaining). Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive amount of prose and well-cited, don’t see anything impeding this from the FP. Won’t mark as ready until agreement is reached on an image, however. The Kip (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with The Kip, prose describing twenty-four days of play is impressive - well done to the editors who wrote those sections. Chrisclear (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Chris Woakes would be a better person for a related image. I disagree with the assertion "it would need to be mentioned Woakes is English if using the image of him". But I would also be happy with  an image of Pat Cummins as the captain of the team retaining The Ashes. Chrisclear (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed the choice of image to Woakes to reflect the sentiment above. Someone will have to edit ALT0 to reflect that change.  Schwede 66  06:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Added "Compton–Miller Medal recipient". Seems like there's a man of the series for both teams, so it's incorrect to say "man of the series". Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted alt0. Doesn't appear to be any outstanding issues. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Reubens

 * Support The article cites reliable sources reporting his death. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support He is a very well known actor and comedian and the article is well referenced and in good shape. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While the TV filmog has some issues, on balance it is fine as is.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support The TV/video games filmography section still need sources, however the overall article is well sourced. Given the speedy nature of sources being added to the filmography section, I believe everything should be sourced within the hour or two. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with TDKR's caveats on current source. Close and nearly there. M asem (t) 19:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Quality is fine, for the most part. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: on quality and importance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Multiple gaps in referencing, especially in the tables at the bottom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb A blurb and/or picture is needed here because the subject was especially famous under their stage name for which there is a separate article – Pee-wee Herman.  So, just running the name Paul Reubens through the RD ticker isn't adequate or appropriate.  Note that the readership for the nominated article was over 1.5 million yesterday and so gatekeeping is beside the point.  We should focus on how best to present this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: on quality and importance. Linke should include a/k/a Pee Wee Herman 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very well-known personality, blurb should include his infamous alias (Pee Wee Herman) Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (RD) though I agree with that the "filmography" section could have more references, the article prose seems decently referenced. I wouldn't just delete the filmography to make this have more less-referenced lines to qualify as an end-run either (not helpful for readers). —  xaosflux  Talk 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, quality looks good. The posting should include an IAR (Pee Wee Herman) in parenteses next to the name. His character blurred lines between reality and fiction, especially at the peak of his fame in the 1980s, so it wouldn't be surprising if someone who hasn't heard the news didn't recognize the Paul Reubens name. Just food for thought. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added missing citations for the video game/television filmographies. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I considered including "(Pee-wee Herman)" in the listing but decided against it; if another admin wanted to IAR and add it, I wouldn't object. On a personal note, I was a huge fan of Pee-wee growing up, and of Paul's later work; huge loss to the entertainment world. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Aquatics Championships

 * Oppose on quality. Article has not been updated with a proper prose synopsis of the event. -- Jayron 32 12:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance. Not prominently reported on; would be WP:UNDUE emphasis on this event to post it when we decline more significant events. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that this event was ITN/R until 2022 when it was removed via this discussion of six events which removed all the ones except those popular in the USA. Ironically one of the reasons given for removing this was that it hadn't been nominated since 2017!  However, Oppose on quality. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment All blurbs are wrong. China won the most gold medals. Australia won the most gold medals in swimming, which was only one of the six disciplines. Moreover, the fact that the United States won the most medals is completely irrelevant when the ranking is made by the number of gold medals won. I've proposed altblurb3 as a correct one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb4 to hopefully remedy the confusion. I am supportive of this on notability and I think the quality is getting better. I added some citations but prose is needed on the event itself ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimiro Roca

 * Query The first reference is dead for me. Does it confirm the date of birth and the place of birth?  Schwede 66  02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just thrown in an extra footnote near the DoB. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , it did cover those points, I added an archive link which hopefully works; regardless, the new Miami Herald source above also covers this. Two other sources in that section were also dead links, so I've added archived versions of those as well. Curbon7 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  04:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Khar bombing

 * Its high death toll makes it notable enough & the article quality is sufficient. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article isn't ready for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why have you nominated it? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, the article is very short, and will need to be improved before we talk about notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Support in principle but with only six sentences, it will require substantial expansion before posting to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support on notability.  Schwede 66  01:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support in principle I did some expansion but I think it still needs some work before it meets main page requirements. 2001:2020:301:6B8A:3DE8:A452:75E5:B9B8 (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - think its long enough now.  nableezy  - 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Saw this in the news yesterday and was waiting for a decent article to cover it. Quality and size are ready to go. --M asem (t) 15:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is not super long but I think it is long enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Question In different places, the article says that 54 or 55 people were killed. Which is correct? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That number has been changed in the article several times. Different RS give different figures. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Tour de France Femmes

 * Ready Excellent article. It's ready to go and if there had been a couple of supports here, I would have posted it. Can't think of a good reason why we would come to a different notability conclusion than last year's.  Schwede 66  01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there was a suggestion that the Tour Femmes should be ITNR but others suggested making sure that the event was reported widely and the article generated was of high quality for a few years. We clearly should be trying to tag it as ITNR (we post the men's event and while the women's is not run at the same time, it seems just as important), but as for this current entry, I support the item, that's how we expect a sports article to be written for the main page. M asem (t) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like an important event & it's a great article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Recap written, article now fully updated with photos etc. Key links (Tour de France Femmes, Demi Vollering) have also been updated. Turini2 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is outstanding, and the event was posted last year. Big credit to all editors involved. Curbon7 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  09:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nancy Van de Vate

 * Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Danny Grossman

 * Support Sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Spotted one statement that might need a citation, but I don’t think it prevents this from being posted. Weak oppose One cn tag and expansion tagged. Change !vote after rereading article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Wilson (basketball, born 1942)

 * Support Article looks good 62.101.230.180 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has an expansion tag that either needs to be removed/expanded upon. ❤History Theorist❤  23:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I expanded the section and removed the tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Congressman seeking to be first high-profile candidate to challenge an incumbent president in several decades

 * Oppose and close Ignoring that this is just internal US political shenanigan number 197319, we don't (usually) post stuff like "x considers to do something" or "x plans to do something", we post when they do it. Doesn't matter what that thing is. Anyone can say they'll do something, doesn't mean anything of substance will happen from it. We should at least wait until he actually does it Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is already a higher-profile candidate challenging Biden for the Democratic nomination. BD2412  T 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And as a further note, please do not make the title of your noms so long. All it does is make the contents tab much longer. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Nematode revived after 46,000 years

 * Support major finding. Fdfexoex (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant material for this blurb is only a single sentence currently. - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Cryptobiosis as a concept is already well-understood and the discovery here is not one that was not already known, particularly for nematodes. The more interesting subject is that this was a previously unknown species, but sadly the coverage does not seem enamored with that particular fact. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  17:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip. The Kip (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - no prejudice on resubmitting when they revive a mammoth. Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above, and I would like to add that this is not ITN material because there have been things like this happening before, and if we post every time an ancient animal got revived, it would just be weird. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has the peer-reviewed paper which we see being demanded for the item about Nero’s theatre. Reviving an organism of such age is impressive — the stuff of Jurassic Park.  And certainly more significant than a routine game of golf. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Jurassic Park were a movie about worms. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite a major finding, but this isn't like cloning a mammoth. That would have been a biggest scientific find that makes a lot of people say "WOW!!!". MarioJump83 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major finding an excellent ITN material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltClip. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, in principle. It's 46k years which is a long time. Mammoths will never be revived because they lack the biological mechanisms necessary to revive one. Only in-principle support however, because the target article is not very relevant to what actually happened. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: i am admittedly not a microbiologist, but from examining the paper reporting the new species, it looks like the paper mentions that the species had previously been reported as "Panagrolaimus aff. detritophagus", where the "aff." stands for "species affinis", meaning that the specimens showed similarities to members of the previously known species panagrolaimus detritophagus but did not actually belong to that species. the earlier report, published in 2018, also notes that the specimens were first collected in 2002 and had an estimated radiocarbon age of 32,000 years.  what the 2023 paper is reporting is that the specimens may have actually been frozen for about 46,000 years, and belong to a previously undescribed species, which the authors have named panagrolaimus kolymaensis.  as a result, i think this nomination might be stale (like the nematodes), but would be interested to see someone providing an argument reviving it (like the nematodes).  dying (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Walser

 * Oppose Article needs major ref work. A lot of citation needed tags and two unsourced sections. Not to mention the lead could be expanded to reflect more about why he's notable/major works/possible controveries/etc. Also noticed some sentences are still using present tense, not past, so it hasn't been updated thoroughly post-death announcement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with TDKR Chicago 101, who already updated a lot (and many others including myself updated a bit) that this article is in a shameful state as I write this, and not ready to appear on the Main page. I'm willing to look further, but a nomination without a minimum of presentable content (it's long only because of detailed coverage of one a bit sensational event) is not what I would do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Sandstein, I have no idea what you mean by "is updated". Next time you think an article is updated, please name the updater's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this edit helps? I'm adding you as an updater here, Gerda. --PFHLai (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I came to add myself. - No idea how the tabloid obit would help, but it has nice pics. I'll add the FAZ obit tomorrow, - too tired. All references are now formatted, and many refs have been found, thanks to all who helped. More is needed, especially regarding the politics, the academies, the plays and the films. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check again. I found a bibliography (Fetz), and Suhrkamp lists many awards if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for Now Publications section needs more citation work. ❤History Theorist❤  01:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All works are referenced (on top of the sections) to the Fetz bibliography, many additionally by other ref(s) and an ISBN number. If you don't think so please be more precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready – Article lacks citations.  Schwede 66  01:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Schwede, please be more precise, and also note the reply just above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  09:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Saeed bin Zayed Al Nahyan

 * Not Ready article needs significant expansion for me to support ITN. ❤History Theorist❤  01:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There's quite a bit of work needed to get this ready.  Schwede 66  01:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nero's theatre

 * Oppose The article is very short, and it looks like there's not much to see there. Instead of the theatre, we see the contemporary palazzo in its place. --Trepang2 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 600+ words now. Very short? --PFHLai (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding that "there is not much to see", I recommend this clip on youtube. Whichever way you look at it, it is the most important archaeological discovery in Rome in decades, and as such it has being covered by many media around the world. I conclude by saying that the palazzo (Palazzo della Rovere) is not "contemporary", but from 1480, that is, a few years ago... ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - it seems to only be a single-sentence update to the article, as it stands. I will say I weakly support on notability, however. The Kip (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update? This is a brand new wikiarticle created a few days ago. --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article length is decent enough to not call it a stub. Mostly well-sourced, though I did catch one sentence without a citation. A quick search for the subject brought up quite a few news articles that could be used to further expand the article and demonstrates that the subject is in the news. Though I would like to see a fair use photo of the actual site added to the article (news articles show that these photos do exist) instead of just using a photo of the nearby palazzo, this is hardly a fair reason to oppose an ITN nomination.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect fair use wouldn't pass here because the site is presumably accessible enough for a free photo (at least through a fence). Brandmeistertalk  21:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt An "exceptional" find, per CNN, and on that we agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this is certainly notable, and the quality issue seems to have been dealt with. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a peer-reviewed paper to back up these findings? We usually don't post these types of stories without that peer-reviewed paper. --M asem (t) 04:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't found, but per multiple sources the discovery was announced by the Special Superintendant for Archaeological Heritage of Rome, Daniela Porro, which looks sufficient. Brandmeistertalk
 * Support I was initially suspicious that this was hype but the article does a good job of explaining and justifying the claim. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. Very nice story and great work with the article! --Tone 10:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support One of the most impressive archeological finds, and as such, keep the blurb. Frankly though, if there's something like Xia Dynasty is confirmed or something like that, it should deserve a blurb. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Excellent material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose — Certainly interesting, but not a major news event. Save it for DYK. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this not a major event? This is the most significant archaeological discovery in years, and that's not hyperbole. Archaeologists have been searching for this theatre for ages, and the structure contained countless preserved artifacts which help build a better picture of ancient Rome. Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Article doesn't say any of that. Can we improve the article to make the significance more obvious? We all know Nero is important but the article basically just says "May have been where Nero watched Rome burn" in one sentence. Article doesn't vouch for itself QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Request Temporary Pull. The article still appears quite light. It does not substantiate the significance of the theatre, nor the supposed extensive search for it, which are the main driving factors for this item's significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Important archaeological discovery for one of the most well-known Roman emperors. Seems reasonable to keep up; no need to pull. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post posting oppose Article doesn't even vouch for its own notability or importance. Just marginally a stub article, and since its not a news event, i'm am skeptical it will get more info added to the page soon. How notable really is this theatre? the page has one throwaway line about how the theatre may have been where Nero watched Rome burn, but that amount of uncertainty just renders this article not notable enough for the front page. Like this is even below Milan Kundera (who I opposed). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hottest month ever

 * Oppose — Far too long of a blurb—an informal one, at that—that loses focus halfway through. Climate change is difficult to blurb because it doesn't have a beginning or an end, e.g. climate change naturally occurs, so this about human-induced climate change, which doesn't have an exact beginning or end date either. António Guterres is not a scientist, either. I would support an ongoing entry about the heat waves. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support a revised variant of this sentiment, sans the "global boiling" neologism. The fact that this past month has been the hottest ever recorded seems plenty significant enough for its own blurb. (That's assuming it hasn't already been mentioned on ITN recently, of course. I've been taking a break from the internet for the past month or so, and I haven't kept up-to-date on recent blurbs. If it's been posted, I would oppose adding a duplicate.) Kurtis (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it hasn’t been blurbed due to article quality issues. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in theory I'd support this since it's a significant trend update in our struggle to combat climate change. I'm just confused if climate change would be the target article or if there's another more appropriate target article? Also I agree that the blurb could use some shortening/change. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder/Waning Support This is not a "declaration", this is a figure of speech "snipped" from a press conference; the world is not boiling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The UN statement is hyperbole - a stern caution and the like but still not a scientific fact. On the other hand the heat wave article has been proposed recently for Ongoing (which makes sense) but no one has worked on improving it to any degree to include it. I think that option is still on the table because the heat waves are continuing. --M asem (t) 22:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose El Nino is in effect this year so warmer global temps than usual. This is just fear mongering. Koltinn   (talk)  22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just wrong. The Kip (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why this statement to highlight climate change and not the litany of other significant reports of broken records? This seems like an odd choice. This is the sort of thing where we need to remind ourselves that ITN is not a news ticker, and we don't act as a sounding board for politicians trying to speak to history. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled, User:WaltCip, what politicians have to do with this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @NfitzThe blurb currently reads in part: United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declares that Earth has entered an "age of global boiling" Why is this particular remark so important that it justifies a mention in a blurb about climate change? Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is important enough. I'm still trying to understand the whole thing enough to opine, or not (a novel concept I admit at WikiShootFirst 🙂). So I'm trying to clarify. I've never considered the UN Secretary General a politician - more of a bureaucrat; so it didn't cross my mind that you were referring to him. To a great extent, he's repeating what we already know. Haven't we already ITN'd the unusual July weather conditions? If not, perhaps that's the story. Or maybe it should be ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose far too nebulous. Climate change has been and will continue to be ongoing for decades to come. Also actions not words, ultimately it's of little importance what the UN says, lots of politicians talk about climate change all the time but do very little to by way of countering it. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt, but this runs into the same issues as every other global warming/climate change blurb proposal - what's the target article? What's the update in said article? There's gotta be a focus, we're not a news ticker. The Kip (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The way I figured it, the rule about needing a target article was getting in the way of focusing on the plain and simple fact of the matter, so I ignored it. People know what a month is, they know what the world's hottest is and only some of them will read or hear this news elsewhere. For the greater good, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until July is confirmed as the hottest month ever and then post it as a definite rather that a bit of CRYSTAL. No target article is needed. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any nomination without a target article. And the 2023 heat waves article needs mega work done on it.--69.118.235.3 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are all kinds of climate related records that are being broken right now, and this record is just one of many. The "age of global boiling" thing is a rhetorical declaration by a single official, not a term actually adopted by the scientific community. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Climate change has been going on since the formation of the Earth. Anthropogenic climate change has been around for 10 times longer than this encyclopedia. This also seems to be a repeat of a nomination for global temperature records earlier that failed to reach consensus. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of last June's record, which most people supported, but thought all the articles sucked and/or wanted to wait till about now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note I've switched the blurb and altblurb. Also retitled the nom. It wasn't going well the old way but could work now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is uncertainty in the title of the nomination and there isn't even an article mentioned. This is not to deny climate change, but simply "hottest month ever" as an ITN blurb is not very ITN-worthy. If climate change keeps ramping up, every month will be "hottest month ever". I'd be willing to change my mind if there were any concrete events to back up this nomination. ❤History Theorist❤  05:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The uncertainty's gone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like something that would be better highlighted in DYK. It's unclear what the impact of "the hottest month in 120,000 years" even is. I'm also unable to find this story on the front page of any of the major news networks, CNN, MSNBC, Google News, etc. Perhaps it was ITN a couple weeks ago but interested appears to have tailed off. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was news six days ago, but yeah, that's not today. I guess speculation is just sexier than waiting for the evidence, in pop science. The "important" thing today is greater metropolitan records, which seem less important/significant/transformative to me than ocean temperatures broadly. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't speculation, July 2023 had the highest world average temperature of any calendar month on record by an immense margin compared to the difference between #2 and #3. Also Phoenix reached 110+ degrees a record-shattering 31 days in a row and 119 several times and parts of Chile's mountains got hotter in Aug '23 than it's been in at least 7,300 days (20 years including summer). 102F at altitude in winter! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't, now. But it was only as sexy as it was back when it was "boiling". You're still excited, of course, because that's your thing. Especially the precise spicy details! As the wider global story goes, though, the iron was hot and we failed to strike. Stay cool, desert and mountain folk! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think 2023 heat waves has a solid chance to get on the main page, because weather be weird and people be dying. However, I'd want some fairly specific things to be said in the "Political, charity, NGO, scientific and corporate responses" section, like major figureheads like António Guterres giving the season a specific designation. Something specific like "the hottest month in history in Spain, Russia, and China" (for example, I don't know the data). I can confirm that my region in the world didn't have a heatwave in July. We had ours in June. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patricia A. Goldman

 * Support The article is well-cited and is of sufficient length. ❤History Theorist❤  16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 07:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Randy Meisner

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some uncited statements throughout the article diminish its quality. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too many uncited parts remain.  Schwede 66  01:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still too many {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Simpson Kalisher

 * Almost Ready pretty well-cited for the most part, but there are one or two uncited statements ❤History Theorist❤  20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sourcing improvements needed, has 1 cn tag, publications section fully uncited, and exhibitions section has two uncited exhibitions, some other parts of the article may also need citations as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @MonarchOfTerror: I added a citation where the cn tag was and to the two uncited exhibitions. Working on adding additional sourcing elsewhere. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Two cn tags and the lead could be expanded to reflect more about what Kalisher's known for/notable works. A sentence lead is never enough, let alone when the article is pretty detailed and expansive. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I've hidden some uncited content so that it could be posted.  Schwede 66  02:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nigerien coup d'état

 * Oppose on quality for now. This could shape up to be major.  Bremps  ...  18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality (stub), as well as slightly-premature nature. Still too many unknowns as it's an ongoing event, and if it fails quickly I'm not sure it's worth posting. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the outcome is known. Also, the article’s quality will need to be improved. Support The coup was successful & the article’s quality is good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Major update coup successful, article majorly expanded, altered nomination as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added alt2 that is more in ITN style and isn't cluttered with links. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This certainly seems significant, for the coup did turn out successful in removing the current leader, and the article seems to be up to quality now. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 A successful coup is a major, notable event anywhere. Article is well-sourced and contains a decent amount of relevant information. Mooonswimmer 01:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Suport Concur with User:Mooonswimmer, a successful coup is clearly a major event, especially in a country of over 25 million people. Of course the page is a stub and of questionable quality -- the news broke not even 2 hours ago.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Signifigant update, definitely long enough NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - post asap too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is well cited and this is a major event. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has been sufficiently improved, and the event is certainly ITN worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment may be worth proposing adding coup d'états to ITN/R. I myself have nominated several and no-one has ever objected to a successful one on notability yet as far as I'm aware. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * perfectly reasonable _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would they not already qualify under Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government? DecafPotato (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you could have a self-coup Abcmaxx (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed; Posted RD): Sinéad O'Connor
* Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this - a well-known entertainer who wasn't the top of her field. We should not be blurbing every single singer/actor/TV person/sportsball player just because they are well-known. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Needs a significant amount of improvement. And ... yes, I know, I know, but ... Blurb? There are already multiple international sources. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - simple blurb added. Please state if you support blurb or RD only, subject to quality being met. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine posting an RD discussion for an article that doesn't reflect that the person has died. Amazing. Anyway, I'm a fan, but oppose blurb on importance. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, but article needs quality fixes. Hell of a way for me to find out... The Kip (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb, support RD once improved Sure, she was big for a very brief time in the nineties, but after the SNL incident, a lot of her notability and fame disappeared, so unlike Tony Bennett, who had a life long career, was popular for several generations, and so on, she doesn't have the pull that for example Bennett had. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb no indication of any type of influence or legacy...if anything she was more infamous for her commentaries. Oppose RD on quality issues. --M asem (t) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality issues Article needs to be fixed up before posting for RD, then I'd support RD only. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose on quality Decent amount of source work needed. Mooonswimmer 18:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD once quality is improved, oppose blurb We should only very rarely post a blurb for someone's death. RD is made to post most notable deaths. Gust Justice (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - 56 is awfully young, and I thought we had some type of blurb criterion for unusual/unexpected deaths. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we don't know if its "Unusual or Unexpected" yet. Without knowing a cause, its a bit of Crystal ball. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Serious gaps in referencing. And there is an orange tag. This is going to need some work before it can be posted to RD or as a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD once quality is improved, oppose blurb The blurb is probably unnecessary in this case, but she was definitely a notable figure, beyond "Nothing Compares 2 U" and the SNL incident: remember she was still a Grammy Award-winning artist (despite refusing to even take part in the ceremony itself) and, more generically speaking, was one of the best known artists from her home-country of Ireland. I agree the article still needs to get improved, but I still think she fits in the general criteria. Oltrepier (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD once improved Notable musician, unfortunately her article isn't in great shape but may be and so, my position is to support it. Bedivere (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD pending improvements to the article. Sinéad O'Connor was a talented signer with a large and devoted following, but I wouldn't consider her a transformative figure in music&mdash;that is to say, she's not a Tina Turner or a Tony Bennett. Kurtis (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb She wasn’t notable for a long enough period of time. Oppose RD for now due to quality issues. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD She was eminently notable since 1990 - 30+ years! - and her death has resulted in comment from Ireland's President and Taoiseach! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Certainly made a splash in the 90s, and then some train wreck stuff, and then at peace with herself. CoatCheck (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD The article quality isn't great, but it's good enough. As far as I can tell, the unsourced material in the article is about song releases, not controversial BLP claims. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Literally one hit, which was a cover of a song written by someone far more notable. Tore up a photo on SNL once. I know younger people who never even heard of her. BD2412  T 23:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a younger person and I know who she is. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I never heard/barely heard of them" arguments are not valid for consideration of death blurbs at ITNC. --M asem (t) 23:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Funny to read that when you've worked on articles about someone whose only hit came twelve years ago and was the subject of an Internet meme! Oh, the paradox! Bedivere (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't nominating that person for a RD blurb, which is why they brought up the fact that she hasn't really had a major impact on the music industry. No need to make ridiculous comparisons. AryKun (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how I have 2.2 million edits, across more than 1/6 of all Wikipedia articles, the chances of my not having worked on an article on someone meeting that description are mathematically less than my chances of having done so. However, if that article subject were to die under identical circumstances, I would equally oppose a blurb for them. I suspect you would also. BD2412  T 16:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "literally one hit", User:BD2412. She's Irish, and hit number one there as recently as 2014. She had six top-5 albums there during the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one album & one single of hers were major hits internationally. Most of the media coverage she has received since then relates to the controversy she generated & her chaotic personal life. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * She's had 10 albums chart internationally. Her singles haven't charted well internationally after 2000 or so - but neither do singles from massive artists from the 1980s these days. But even in 2000 she had (different) singles chart in at least 5 countries (of the 10 tracked), on two continents - and her album that year went gold in Australia. Though this isn't just about her music. I do think the "one hit" thing has been massively overplayed here. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Folks, please: If you don't personally support a death blurb, don't be the first to raise the subject. You are just distracting from the work at hand.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying don't be the first one to oppose a blurb? Or don't mark a nom for a blurb unless you are also supporting it? —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would support a blurb. At the time I added a blurb, the article was not in a fit state to post. As I said in the edit summary, she is "possibly blurbworthy", so I opened up the subject of a blurb for discussion. Consensus would seem to be against a blurb though. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that as a best practice, IMO one shouldn't raise the possibility of a blurb if s/he is not personally advocating for it. Blurb discussions are contentious and distracting; and for some reason everyone feels the need to pile on, creating the clusterf*** you see now: tons of "Support RD" with no review of the quality. Anyone who is truly blurbworthy will gain support.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You expressed the same sentiment w.r.t Pat Robertson a couple months ago, and I didn't fully articulate my disagreement at the time&mdash;but to be very clear, I completely disagree. Wikipedia is a community project, and we make decisions through consensus. Suhmitting a proposal, even if you aren't in favor of it from the outset, is neither disruptive nor a distraction. Discussion is how we get things done. Kurtis (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, currently I see no obvious huge flaws with the article. (the awards section needs more sources, but that's IMHO not enough to omit her article from RD)<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1690423245075:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready It currently has 13 [citation needed] tags. I reserve judgement whether she was notable enough to justify a blurb.  Schwede 66  03:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - massively significant singer, who was at the top of her game when she was blacklisted in the early 1990s, because of her opposition to pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. If she was just another 1990s singer, perhaps not. But the blacklisting of her changes the game - especially given her vile treatment in the USA, where many prominent figures enabled pedophilia by the Church and protected Pope J-P-II; ironically the Church has since admitted that children were being sexually abused and the Pope was aware. I don't know how a second-stringer like Tony Bennet gets blurbed (mostly it seems, for outliving everyone else), and a much more significant figure like O'Connor doesn't. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - O'Connor has more international recognition than is credited in the above comments (she is quite well known in Europe, and also has reach in Latin America). Some above comments above oppose RD/Blurb based on younger audiences not being familiar, but I would argue that if Tony Bennett counts as relevant, than O'Connor would have an even higher priority for Blurb.Tazanzabub (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not consider the amount of or lack of recognition as a factor for RD blurbs. M asem (t) 13:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you didn't make this comment to those opposing RD saying she wasn't influential enough. Arianddu (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Influence and popularity are different things. There's a difference between being influential (Haruki Murakami) and being popular (Logan Paul). AryKun (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Leo Varadkar publicly announced his condolences, how often does that happen? World figure for sure, meets blurb threshold. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fairly often, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These eight also weren't nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * People being murdered and death of parliamentary colleagues known personally or professionally are very different scenarios though, you cannot compare those to this. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Voice of a generation", then, unblurbed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm aware that Dolores O'Riordan wasn't even nominated for a blurb. It was a different time. The rage against bureaucracy/quality and shoutout to a pope as it regarded the personal life of an Irish singer who went to London to die alone are "all too familiar". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb We've had a couple of questionable blurbs lately, but this is honestly the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; we might as well nominate Yung Gravy whenever he dies if this manages to be blurbed. She is a controversial singer who made a couple of popular albums in the 90's, she is nowhere close to the level of influence you would expect for a blurb. AryKun (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yung Gravy? I believe their pronoun is "he", User:AryKun. Two popular albums in the 90's would be extremely significant - given they were only 3-years old in 2000! Perhaps you are thinking of someone else! Most ridiculous? We literally have Tony Bennett up there right now! Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear that "She" refers to O'Connor, not Yung Gravy (you can see that AryKun understands that Yung Gravy's pronouns are "he" from the words "...whenever he dies".) 2600:1700:38D0:2870:1CFA:420:83E8:2E18 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As IP has said already, "she" refers to O'Connor, not Gravy. Your ability to completely miss the point and construct what might be the dumbest strawman I've ever seen is almost impressive. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I misread he for she; and I was genuinely confused (despite reading it three times), and asked for clarification. And yes, reading now, I wrote it twice ... as you can see from the history, I was caught in an edit conflict; I'll delete the duplication and strike the comment. But that doesn't, User:AryKun justify your AGF failure, and personal attack. Especially after the query was already answered. Your claim that this was the "most ridiculous nomination" is also bizarre, given it's got more attention at Wikipedia than any other death this year (AFAIK); and more attention of any death since Elizabeth II. Also, isn't Yung Gravy (whoever he is) a big strawman argument, given that they've only one single that's charted outside one country (and not well either); and has no sign of social activism at all? Please apologize for you incivility, and stop violating the most fundamental Wikipedia policies we have. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Implying that I thought a three year old Gravy had songs charting on Billboard is nothing if not a strawman, so I don't see how that's a PA. Saying we should nominate Yung Gravy is sarcasm, since he's basically a shitposter, not an actual argument. AryKun (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article seems good enough to me. Most uncited claims are not important, and could probably be sourced trivially if someone cared. The real controversial one is her calling Pope Francis "anti-christian" which seems to come from a televised interview on Channel 4. I'm not 100% on how to cite this the best way. Various small online sources have covered it, for example Irish Central which I'm not familiar with and doesn't have a wiki article, but has been used as a citation in other articles. The actual interview is also posted on Channel 4's YouTube channel, but I don't have enough experience to know whether we can just cite that. When this is fixed I'm of the opinion that the article is good to go despite the few remaining uncited claims about the musical style of some albums and such. I oppose a blurb because while I'm sure many people respect and care about her, frankly she was not in the top of her field, whether we're considering her music (the top would be someone like Michael Jackson) or activism (someone like Gandhi). We blurb way too many deaths and this is why RD exists in the first place. No disrespect to her obviously, as should go without saying. Occidolophus (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Much better known for personal controversies than for artistic achievements. Nsk92 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blub and prefixing one's comment with 'strong', etc., is rather childish, I know.  SN54129  11:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD She doesn’t seem transformative enough, neither in music nor in activism and the article itself doesn’t convince me as it doesn’t demonstrate how she has the sui generis significance needed for a blurb. RD-wise article needs work, mainly sourcing as it has an orange tag and many cn tags. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * who are you lil bro 😭😭 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:4D13:A0E:2B7E:1260 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose on quality; a few sourcing issues need to be cleaned up. Once that is done, would support RD only.  Since there would be nothing to say in a blurb than she died, with no other important information to report, RD is the only appropriate thing to do here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD The heavy editing going on right now seems likely to have the article ready by the time a decision is made here. Theodore Kloba (☎) 13:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment it's crazy that y'all think Sinead O'Connor is less important or notable or recognizable as Milan Kundera. Neither of them deserve blurbs in my view QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty shocking to see. Rick Vitamin (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD Article looks good to me. RD Should be posted ASAP. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Ridiculous that the RD has not been posted, at this stage, tbh! An artist with multiple gold albums, multiple awards, the only female artist ever to refuse a Grammy, the notoriety of the SNL photo-tearing, her outspoken views on the church and religion, etc., etc., not to mention condolences from the Irish president and Taoiseach as well as numerous music stars. Currently her death is covered in the top three stories being run by RTÉ, the Irish state broadcaster, on rte.ie/news, and there are a further seven stories in a special section further on down its news page! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why she hasn't been posted is not because she's not notable (notability is not a requirement to pass RD/blurb) but it's because her article needs some improving. The 1990s subsection of her musical career section has some citation needed tags and then there's an orange tag/refimprove tag in the awards section. I'm sure once these issues have been addressed, this nom will be posted as an RD. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITNQUALITY. You could be the most famous person in the world, but you are not getting posted to ITN unless your article meets the bare minimum standard of quality for posting. That's really all there is to it. This is not a news ticker. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Header Marked "Discuss RD only" This discussion is not going to gain consensus for a blurb. The continuation of the blurb discussion is distracting from a discussion on whether the article is of sufficient quality that it can be posted as an RD. In an effort to refocus the discussion on this, I'm attempting to take the blurb discussion off the table. Please only focus on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * More: While I don't agree with the current WP:ITNQUALITY requirements, they are what they are. The awards section has a lot of entries with no source.  The ITN guideline clearly states "Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. Generally, "orange" and "red" level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page as well.".  Speaking for myself, I'm not going to get into an argument with ITN hawks that I posted something that pretty clearly didn't meet the ITN guidelines.  Time would probably be better spent adding these sources than arguing here that we shouldn't be that strict.  If another admin comes along and says it's good enough as is, I'm not going to argue.  But they should be ready for others to. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you review that thought, given all the subsequent support blurb votes, some of the false statements above, and that her death has more eyes on it than many would have thought. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading all the slightly unclear comments in the most favorable light possible for a blurb, there’s still only a 33% support for a blurb. I’m not going to discount the first 15 comments just because they came early in the discussion. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when, User:Floquenbeam was it a vote? If the later comments are at odds with the earlier comments, then it could well indicate that there's been a greater understanding of her significance, especially outside of North America. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that exactly 4 new people decided to vote in the discussion, of whom 3 (three) voted to blurb, which apparently should count as consensus now and overturn 26 votes overwhelmingly against blurbing that were posted earlier. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to value later commenters more when discussing readiness; the article is constantly improving. It doesn't make as much sense to value later commenters more regarding appropriateness of a blurb, because the circumstances are unlikely to change much.  It devalues the people originally commenting too much.  Now if some of the original commenters come back and say they've been swayed by the argument, then sure that's evidence of a change.  But in the absence of that, I don't see why we discount early commenters opinions on a blurb. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like more than 4 to me; nor do I see 26 against blurbing. And I am seeing at least one struck vote. And some of those opposed make clearly false or irrelevent (only one hit?!? Never heard of her - despite getting the most Wikipedia hits of any death since Elizabeth II?!?) Once again, it's not a vote; Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ready - imo, i see the orange tag down below but still think this is plenty better than things that routinely get posted to RD. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious RD. Article is good enough now, other than the header, despite some tags, (it's got 213 references already!). We've posted RDs on much, much less. Still I think that it's blurbable; notability isn't based on the number of top hits. I'd be interested to see the number of times her page has been accessed in the 24-hours since her death, compared to Tony Bennett. I certainly am seeing a lot more media coverage in Canada about her death, and she was as never as popular here as in Europe. I'd expect massive coverage in Ireland, given how many top-5 hits she had there over, during 4 different decades. If hits really count, Bennett only had top 20 hits in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. There are huge false claims here about O'Connor. Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The stats are available now and this death looks to be the biggest so far this year. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree blurbable but thats been apparently shot down. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily shot down. I'm no longer seeing consensus on non blurbing. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD. This is an egregious omission. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD. Article about Sinéad has 62 interwiki and not mentioning her in the list is just a shame. --Movses (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A blurb requires being transformative. In what way(s) did she fulfil that? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Says who? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is technically no requirement for a blurb. All that is needed is a consensus. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb The spike in readership for this death looks to be greater than that for any other death so far this year. And that includes all the other deaths which were blurbed, such as Tina Turner.  Turner's spike was about 2.5 million while O'Connor's is over 3 million.  Very few deaths get this level of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not decide blurbs based on popularity and we don't care about views hip (indeed this proves readers can find these articles without being on ITN even as an RD). Quality issues still persist, and that is holding up the RD posting. M asem (t) 22:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * we don't care about view[er]ship: This is in the news, is it not? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a standard or uniform system for determining this as, per ITNRDBLURB, it's explicitly sui generis. The size of the readership is therefore quite valid and, as it's a plain, objective and substantial fact, it seems superior to personal opinions.  In this case, it's clear that millions of readers are viewing this and Wikipedia exists for its readership, rather than as an abstract ivory tower. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we based notability & blurbworthiness on pageviews when they die, we'd have to say that Bob Saget & Anne Heche have extremely high notability. We'd conclude that they were each of far higher notability than Pelé; that Saget & Heche should've been blurbed & Pelé not. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * At this point it is increasingly hard to believe that the issue is simply quality issues and not latent misogyny that is holding things up. Arianddu (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On what do you base that? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look further down: owner of a US ice hockey team - no commentary about whether worthy, transformative, recently active or important enough to nominate. Male Canadian politician, notable mainly for being old, ditto. Football player from the 1940s in a code only notable in the US, ditto (and RD posted). British football player, ditto. Another British footballer, 1 comment about notability, replied with not required for RD, all subsequent commentary strictly about quality of article. British male news reader, ditto as per first example. But commentary for O'Connor is repeatedly questioning whether she is worthy of inclusion for an RD. Arianddu (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning her inclusion on RD on merits. Simply that her articles doesn't meet the expected quality in sourcing we expect for any featured links on the Main Page. That's a genderless determination. M asem (t) 00:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning her inclusion on RD on merits? Have you read the commentary? Arianddu (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you’re confusing the discussion between an RD and blurb. People are opposing a blurb on significance, not an RD; that’s being held up by citation issues. The Kip (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fuckwit. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * such eloquence. Arianddu (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not at the level of Lord Tennyson, but it does have brevity going for it. In any case, after seeing a massive discussion about whether we should BLURB her, it does take some incredible selective viewing of the votes to conclude that we're being misogynistic. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We didn't blurb either of those two, because not a single person even suggested we blurb them. Heche's death was extremely dramatic, as then she lingered on her death-bed for a week on life-support afterwards - already declared brain-dead for 3 of them. The death followed perhaps the most bizarre series of one-vehicle accidents I've ever heard of. Had she simply died of natural causes, it would have been a blip. If she'd been immediately killed when she drove into the second building, I doubt it would been anywhere near as high. It's not comparable. Saget's death numbers really surprise me. I'm at a loss to understand that - did I forget something tabloidy about his death? Is there a way to break down these numbers by nation or something? Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Jim 2 Michael, you are looking at stats that only go up to the day O'Connor died. Now that today's (Wednesday's) stats are in, you can see that O'Connor has had virtually the same number of views for a second day, while Saget's only peaked for a single day. I'm still perplexed why Saget would be so high. Was he worshipped as a god in a European country or something? Maybe something linked here? Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some sources, now that remains are some pesky awards from the award section (Rober Awards Music Poll, Meteor Music Awards, Billboard Music Video Award, Goldene Europa, MTV Music Video Award and Danish Music Award). After searching for a source for the remaining unsourced awards, I'm unable to find any. Not sure what the move is now? Hopefully other users can help find these sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those aren't non-notable awards, so you can't just wipe them out of the table. They should be documented, but the age suggests print sources may be necessary. You can easily get newspapers.com via the Wikimedia Library Card, but that might only get MTV and Billboard, given that the others are more European in nature. M asem (t) 00:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically, if it’s unsourced info in a blp and questioned, it should be removed until sourced. Right? Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, and for those smaller awards I would agree removal may be appropriate, but a Billboard and MTV one are not minor and this should be easily sourced but might require more work than just a google search. M asem (t) 03:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, I see enough support to post. Schierbecker (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We are not quite there yet. But the article has improved a lot since the last time I looked. The Awards section still needs sourcing. If we can get that done I think that will be good enough for RD. FTR I concur that no consensus for a blurb is going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

break (continued O'Connor blurb discussion)

 * Posted RD Whilst nowhere near free of citation needed tags, I suggest it's good enough for a recent death post. If you wish, continue to debate whether a blurb should be considered instead. Personally, I would support that on notability grounds when you consider both her performance as a musician together with her outspokenness.  Schwede 66  02:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Honestly, I was disappointed that Barbara Walters and Vivienne Westwood not getting blurbs since they were on top of their fields, especially Barbara who is a pioneer, even if she isn't that well known outside America. Sinead's case is unique: Looking at Google Trends, she has been more well-known in recent years, especially in 2010s forward, because of her outspoken activism as LGBTQ+ ally, and as a LGBTQ+ myself, I see this as a great loss for our community. The bigger issue is, Sinead has low name recognition outside Western countries (especially if you are outside of LGBTQ circles), and this is the very first time I have heard of her name as an Indonesian. It's sad to see that her career fell off this way after SNL incident in 1992 - if that didn't happen she would have had more name recognition here after 1990s. She could have been in top of her field as well if she was given more chances, and I would have heard some of her songs as well as a kid. Misogynism kills careers I guess. I'm sorry. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What, User:MarioJump83 do you mean by "Indonesian"? Typo? I don't think misogyny was the prime issue; she was massively attacked and blackballed, especially in the west, after she had the temerity to suggest that priests were molesting kids; and the Vatican already knew about it; But we are heading into Talk Page territory here. I could see an argument for blurbing Barbara Walters given her so many firsts on TV in the 1960s, and anchoring a major news broadcast like ABC Evening News in the mid-1970s; I'm hard-pressed to think of any women in other countries who achieved that nearly a half-century ago (though I'm sure I've forgotten some). I'm barely aware of Westwood though, I'd be quite neutral on blurbing her. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What, User:MarioJump83 do you mean by "Indonesian"? Well, I come from Indonesia and most Indonesians do not know who she is. No, it's not a typo. Once again that's my opinion, but we should think about WP:NOTFORUM here. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah! I understand now. I thought you meant she was an Indonesian! Yeah, I doubt she was well known outside of Europe for almost all of her career. Even in North America, she virtually vanished from the airwaves after being virtually blacklisted. (edit - I guess I didn't know about her significance in Arab states - see Nableezy below) Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * She is exceedingly well known in the Arab states. See for example this extended obituary in al-Jazeera. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't know this since Google Trends doesn't show anything in there. That's good to hear. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have thoughts about opposing this, but our bar have lowered drastically in recent months, especially once it comes to international notability. It goes without saying that I support blurbing this. Once again I wish Barbara and Vivienne got their blurbs. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - top-5 all-time internationally-significant Irish singer/musicians. Front page of the NYT, London Times, and Le Monde, among other countries' papers of record. And currently half the blurbs on ITN are about last week's sports results. ITN would do well to post more blurbs and be updated more frequently. Deaths like hers (receiving front page international coverage) are significant enough to blurb, even if some Wikipedia editors have never heard of her or don't think she was very important. Levivich (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We purposely do not consider what is "front page news" because that differs depending on where you are at or when you look at the source. M asem (t) 03:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop saying we when what you mean is I. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem: You can see the world's paper front pages at websites like frontpages.com/world-newspapers/. (Just scroll through and look how many world papers have Sinead on their front page.) I'm not talking about website front pages (which, you're right, are personalized), I mean paper. The paper front pages of newspapers is a good indication of what those papers' editorial boards think is the most important news each day. In the aggregate, looking at the paper front pages of world newspapers of record is a good indication of what the world thinks is important each day. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth,, I haven't seen the ITN blurbs turn over so quickly over the last few days for a very long time.  Schwede 66  03:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Though why do we have only 4 blurbs right now? Isn't it 5 normally - and I've seen 6 at times. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNBALANCE: the combined length of ITN/OTD should generally be the same size as TFA/DYK on the Main Page; as ITN is the most malleable, that usually means removing or re-adding blurbs. I believe there was one time last year where we had 7(!) blurbs up at once, while a few months ago we only had 3; balance giveth and balance taketh. Curbon7 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that. Hmm ... the one OTD seems very long "In New York City, the NAACP and church and community leaders organized a silent march (newsreel footage featured) of at least 8,000 people to protest violence directed towards African Americans.". Could someone with rights at least fix the grammar mistake (NAACP and church and community leaders). I'd think that "A silent march was organized in New York City" would have been better though ... Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sinead O'Connor's death made it to the front page of major papers in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy,  Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark Australia, Brazil, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China, Canada, and the USA. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can someone make a new proposed blurb somewhere, as we are obviously still debating that aspect (I still massively support a blurb). Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Like so?  Schwede 66  06:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Previously I would have said no to this, but it's clear the bar has moved significantly in recent months and we now blurb many more people that we used to. By that standard, and given her relatively going age, O'connor seems to qualify. Keep it as the simple one though, no need to include her other name or where she died. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN blurbed 17 individual deaths in 2022 but only seems to have blurbed 4 so far this year – Bennett, Brown, Kundera and Turner. So, we are blurbing less than we used to. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the name she died with, unprofessionally, and also where she lived. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Fairly high quality and overally well-referenced article of candidate who is a highly notable Irish singer/musician, per above. Happily888 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb as per my previous comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as I've changed my mind in comparison to my original comment. I've also tried to improve the "Awards" section by adding several sources I've retrieved, although some bits of information were atrociously hard to find: for example, none of the three Danish media portals I went to seem to provide any type of information on her double victory in their domestic DMAs, which is quite confusing to me... Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt or Nothing Per the front page news and her well-documented beef with her common/slave/cursed name. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Per all their above Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I now align with Amakuru. The consensus is changing on the subject of blurbable deaths, though of course it is going to require us to take another long look at what we consider "transformative", or perhaps more likely, just rewriting the WP:ITNRDBLURB criteria entirely. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this - a well-known entertainer who wasn't the top of her field. We should not be blurbing every single singer/actor/TV person/sportsball player just because they are well-known. Chrisclear (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Levivich's front page demonstration above is all the evidence I think is necessary to demonstrate that this person dying was front page news and as such imo it should be in our "in the news" section on our front page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Not at a level of significance that would justify a blurb. On a side not, I do not know who arbitrarily broke up the discussion, but that was inappropriate. It is not how we do it at ITN and the discussion is now quite confusing with overlapping votes all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I share part of the blame for that; it seemed clear at the time I tried to refocus away from a blurb that a blurb wasn't happening, and it was derailing discussion on whether it was RD-worthy. But then someone restarted a blurb discussion as a separate discussion, and (worse) people have now commented in both sections. It would have been better, if someone was sure I'd made an error in judgement, to have undone my marking it RD discussion only. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. You were clearly acting in good faith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. First, Ad Orientam is correct that this way of splitting of the discussion about a blurb is highly inappropriate and smacks of an attempt to game the system. There were plenty of users who commented on the blurb option before this artificial split-off and their opinions carry no less weight. On the substance: ITN for death blurbs should not be about how sensationalized the recent coverage of a person has been but based on their lasting impact and significance. In the case of O'Connor, for quite a few years (even decades) most of her coverage had to do with various personal controversies rather than artistic impact. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a protest singer rather than a pop star, I think her various personal controversies are the weightier part. The one about fighting the real enemies in the Church definitely had more lasting impact than, say, inventing a new synth pad or starting a new dance fad. Mental health, transgenerational trauma and suicide awareness are also since pretty popular, in part thanks to her. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe in Ireland, but most of the world has no idea who she was and their views on mental health were unaffected by her. AryKun (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I speak for Northern Ontario. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The worldwide newspaper front pages prove you wrong. Demonstrably, the whole world thinks her death is front page news, which means they know who she was. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As WP is not a newspaper, and ITN not a news ticker, we don't care where stories are posted, or how many front pages a story gets. We care about the encyclopedic quality of the article and the demonstration (described in the article backed by those sources as a means of objective evidence) of why that person was important. There's a lot of outpouring of sympathy for O'Connor's death and the overall problems with her life, but that's all that I'm seeing in these front page obits. M asem (t) 16:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's not all we're seeing. We have clearly identified significance/importance/whatever, in the article and without. "We" meaning "the other side", of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no demonstrated sourced discussion of her significance in the article. None. The arguments on this line are akin to original research to claim she was significant or important. So the only argument that has objective demonstration is "her death was on the front page of many international newspapers", which is not a reasonable argument to use for what are supposed to be exception RD blurb posting. M asem (t) 01:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem, the question was whether most of the world has no idea who she was. We need to try not to confuse the issue as I think you and AryKun are arguing two separate points; they are arguing that nobody knows who Sinead O'Connor is, while you're arguing that it's irrelevant whether there is any news coverage or recognition of her. It's difficult to have any sort of productive conversation about whether consensus should exist for a blurb when the goalposts keep shifting. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but newspapers are Wikipedia's WP:RS. We summarize RSes, and we look to RSes to determine what we write; we look to RSes to decide if we should have an article about something (WP:N), and to decide what to include in articles (WP:DUE). We also look to RSes to determine if an individual was significant enough to merit an ITN blurb when they die. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb RD seems enough to me. Interesting character/life but to me she doesn't seem significant enough for the Blurb. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb. Typically speaking I wuld not be a "support", especially when it comes to someone who is not a true titan in the musical game, but the untimely death and strong coverage really sends this one here. Maybe that's just my Irish bias talking, but I do feel O'Connor clears whatever line I have set for death blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I wish we would post less death blurbs. RD is sufficient. YD407OTZ (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb We didn't blurb Eddie Van Halen. She was not bigger than Van Halen. Tradedia talk 19:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "We screwed up before" doesn't mean we continue to screw up forever. Also, consensus can change, as it indeed has certainly done at ITN just in the past few months. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have blurbed Eddie Van Halen, User:Tradedia. But also, not bigger than Eddie Van Halen? There's at least |Tony_Bennett|Harry_Belafonte|Jim_Brown|Tina_Turner|Milan_Kundera|Barbara_Walters|Burt_Bacharach|Raquel_Welch|Eddie_Van_Halen double the pageviews of her death compared to Eddie Van Halen; and higher than anyone else we've blurbed so far this year. Eddie was a huge star, but has not got the social activism that O'Connor has; which is what puts her over the top. If it was just for her music, I'd agree. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. International figure and a household name. That we made an error when we didn't blurb Eddie Van Halen is not reason to make an error here. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. In a vacuum I may have opposed this; I don't necessarily see her as transformative in the field of music. But based on my understanding of the impact recently blurbed individuals have had, I think she makes the cut as both a musician and someone who made the news for her actions on TV. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb While I agree that this is a solid RD case only, in the days after her death, I have been amazed to see the global coverage and the somewhat impact she left in the music world, perhaps not through her songs but through her actions/opinions. She did make global headlines during her career and in death. While I agree that she's nowhere near Bennet/Turner level of musical impact (these two definitely deserved blurbs), I also believe her dying young/somewhat unexplained circumstances (though not mysterious or malicious) I feel that too would warrant a blurb especially for someone as controversial and with an extensive career as O'Connor. I would feel though someone should create a legacy section (if possible at all) to further discuss the impact she made (if any). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly support blurb, I'm unsure what the typical standard for a blurb is (and going by this discussion, there isn't really one), but based on the news coverage and article view statistics I'd say a blurb would be in order. In the end, Wikipedia is made for humans and if humans care about someone, that's the most important thing IMHO. My main concern is actually that by the time a consensus may be reached, her death may no longer be "news", so my support kind of hinges on how long it'll take to develop consensus. I'd only support the original blurb though, not the alternative. Referring to her as "Shuhada' Sadaqat" is confusing, I wouldn't refer to Tina Turner as "Anna Mae Bullock" in a blurb either. Follow WP:COMMONNAME.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1690577637881:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anna Mae Bullock chose "Tina Turner" for a stage name and Shuhada' Sadaqat chose to renounce "Sinéad O'Connor" for everything but a stage name. Almost like a deadname or slave name. Death isn't very professional, in any case, and most mainstream news doesn't seem to care about her preference in this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Chrisclear. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral about a blurb now I don’t think she was notable enough as a musician to merit a blurb under normal circumstances, but her death is being covered widely. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Subject appears to be known less for being top of her field/transformative figure, and more about causing controversy in the 90s that, once ended, tanked her career and thus general relevancy. RD yes, blurb no. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why choose to ignore her continued international prominence for social issues through this century. And why say that her career tanked in the 1990s, when her most recent number one album was in 2014? With three other top-10 albums since the 1990s. It's not like she's been out of the spotlight since she spoked out about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic church over 30 years ago - at least in most of the world. I'm really puzzled, User:Fakescientist8000 why there the truth is being stretched so much in this discussion. Why do you discount her prominence since she accurately outed the Pope, virtually blacklisting her in North America? Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Matter of perspective. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. To the best of my knowledge (and I'll admit I don't participate at ITN and may be wrong; WP:ITNBLURB does not cover the "typical picks" in detail here), blurbs are selected based on the "size" of the news story, not the "importance" of the subject(s) of the story. These are of course both subjective things. On both 26 July and 27 July (stats for 28 July are not online as I write this), Sinéad O'Connor received around 3.25M pageviews . By contrast, all five articles boldlinked at ITN right now are in the tens-of-thousands of pageviews (|2023_Israeli_judicial_reform|2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests|2023_Nigerien_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat|2023_Tour_de_France). Other recent deaths are in the thousands by daily pageviews (|Mike_Ivie|Matei-Agathon_Dan|Silvana_Lattmann|Mal%C3%BA_Urriola). I could construct an argument about why O'Connor is notable beyond one chart toping single and one SNL episode, but with page view counts that astronomically outside the ordinary, I feel like I don't need to. The story seems big enough to justify a blurb. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 03:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - I don't see what about her makes her transformative enough to blurb. She was not at the top of her field. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bo Goldman

 * Oppose for Now The awards and nominations section is completely uncited. ❤History Theorist❤  17:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I've sourced the awards and nomination section fully, and almost fully sourced the filmography. anyone willing to post before this rolls over? The remaining uncited parts of the filmography can be removed if needed. Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  22:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has some cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Silvana Lattmann

 * Support It looks like this has enough details & references. Also, this could be moved to July 25 if it was 1st reported on that date. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * moved to 25, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rocky Wirtz

 * Oppose Needs sourcing work, 1 cn tag, a few uncited paragraphs in the “Ownership of the Blackhawks” section, and 2 uncited statements in the “awards and honors”. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Issues noted four days ago remain unaddressed.  Schwede 66  01:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Monte Kwinter

 * Oppose Article is an appropriate length, but there are too many uncited statements. ❤History Theorist❤  23:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Orange tagged and many paragraphs don’t have citations. Sourcing needs improvement. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Too much footnote-deficient prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Lujack

 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is good enough shape for posting. With his death, it seems that leaves just George Papach, Dub Jones, George Sims and Pete Wismann as the last NFL players of the 1940s. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pretty-well cited and an appropriate length for ITN ❤History Theorist❤  21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Chris Bart-Williams

 * Oppose There's several cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Referencing work needed before posting, article is orange tagged and has many cn tags. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Issues noted four days ago remain unaddressed.  Schwede 66  01:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan floods

 * Oppose as it's a stub. Did propose better-worded altblurb, however. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Question - is this that unusual a death toll? Floods, heat, and fire everywhere, with the increasingly unstable weather. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Arid country, User:Koltinn usually sees rainfall in December-April. Koltinn   (talk)  10:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, User:Koltinn, the 2022 Afghanistan floods tells us that 241 people died in July and August 2022 from flooding. 2020 Afghanistan flood tells us that 190 died in August 2022; we didn't blurb either, despite the much, much, higher death toll. The 31 deaths reported here, aren't even comparable. Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The article needs to be expanded more. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose First off, as per above, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded, and secondly, even if the article was expanded, this would seem to be tragic, but still not that unusual for that area. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, lean oppose on notability Article is way too stubby right now, needs significant expansion. Leaning oppose on notability as it doesn’t seem too unusual as the country is highly prone to natural disasters, even more so with climate change happening recently. High casualty incidents aren’t super rare due to various factors such as poor socio-economic conditions as well as years of conflict and little stability making the government poor at disaster management etc. Very tragic but doesn’t seem significant enough. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait As Nfitz points out, the trend in this wacky new decade seems to see Afghan flood seasons end in August. For death counting, at least. I'd wager there are geological ramifications for hills and valleys come winter, too, some possibly interesting and just in need of development. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say close then, with no prejudice on resubmitting if conditions worsen significantly. Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Cecilia Pantoja

 * This is currently a 70-word stub in need of an expansion. es:Cecilia Pantoja may be useful. --PFHLai (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article seems to have been expanded enough but sourcing needs work. A few uncited paragraphs and discography is fully uncited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) (Ongoing/Blurb) 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

 * Support The protests will get more headlines and more intense now that the Knesset have approved the controversial judicial reform. Article's also in good shape and it's been updated appropriately. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Might be better to have a new blurb along the lines of "Israeli government passes New law reducing the power of the country's courts, sparking a new wave of protests" (or along those lines) M asem (t) 21:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that a blurb seems more appropriate, now that the law has been adopted. In lieu of that, I would support ongoing, but right now, it's the top headline and should be treated as such. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As I stated, I would support it going into ongoing, but I would not be opposed to a blurb. I wasn't sure how to add a nom showing a blurb and an ongoing nom together. Please feel free to fix it if I screwed up :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a blurb, but if we do go that route, it should mention the ongoing protests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, then ongoing if it's still going on after the blurb rolls off. Meets notability standard, considering coverage of law and protests. The Kip (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - per The Kip. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination does not list any sources. Having looked into this myself, it seems clear that the proposed blurbs are inaccurate.  The law does not  "prevent judges from striking down government decisions" as judicial review will still exist.  The limitation is on the use of reasonableness as a justification.  When you look at our article on reasonableness, it's easy to see why it's problematic because it is quite fuzzy and so tends to be a matter of opinion.  The general topic here is judicial activism which is also being rolled back in other places such as the US.  Explaining this clearly seems beyond the power of ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of alt blurb 2? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsatisfactory. The bill does more than curb use of reasonableness; it also affects the appointment of judges and legal advisors.  The target article has much to say about this and I haven't read it all but it seems easy to see an orange tag and substantial paragraphs with no citation.  Note that our own supreme court has mandated that this part of the world is contentious and so must be treated with special care.  A hasty, slapdash posting is therefore unwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The way of reading laws that replaces broader readings is no less political (e.g. Originalism).
 * It is on it's face political, as it claims that not only does the original intent and meaning matter, but the judge is the most appropriate person to determine what that meaning and intent was.
 * And de facto, it serves to pull power towards the legislative and executive and make it harder for laws to be reasonable.
 * Any small change would now have to be voted upon, which would be good, if elections and legislative were effective in affecting change, which they haven't been recently.
 * Which is a big win for conservatives.
 * It's not a neutral change that is unremarkable or not newsworthy. I wish more people were aware of it. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Proposed & support alt blurb 2 This is important enough to post, both articles look good enough to post & the alt blurb I proposed mentions both of the important articles & I think it addresses Andrew's concerns. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2, with ongoing optional if the protests continue. Regards So  Why  10:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose altblurb to remove the need for us to come to an agreement on what the bill actually does: "The Israeli Knesset approves a judicial reform bill after months of protests against it." QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb3 to the nomination, since (as I understand it) that's the procedure for proposing an altblurb. Please reprimand me or revert that if this is not, this is my first time diong this. THanksQueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 2. I also nominated the protests before the Knesset approved the judicial reform.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support either altblurb and we should monitor to see if moving to ongoing is needed ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - I went with altblurb 3 (but with the same links as the others use) as this is the most concise wording, but if people still prefer alt2 instead we can edit it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose — The judicial reform was not notable, the protests were. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted late) RD: Trevor Francis

 * Support Although the article seems thin on the content it's fine for ITN-RD. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per nom. Poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support He's definitely notable enough, as a key figure of English football and a Serie A icon, but the article definitely needs more citations, especially in the sections about his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oltrepier (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2023 July 25 (UTC)
 * Notability is no longer a criteria for recent deaths, as it is subjective. The career is pretty much the whole article, and there are eight paragraphs with no citations, including his entire international career and three clubs. There is also no mention at all in the text about his brief stay in Australia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Although article needs work but it is OK for RD. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article not okay enough for posting. Outstanding CN tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many uncited statements for me to support for RD ❤History Theorist❤  05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Always the sourcing, ain’t it? Anyways, way too many cn tags, sourcing needs improvement. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality There are still 14 cn tags in the article. Vida0007 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Zero {cn} tag remaining. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted late. Seems to be ready while still eligible but left unattended at the deadline. --PFHLai (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Alagiah

 * Weak support Article well sourced except for the three cn tags in the first paragraph of the awards section. Support Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I've found references for the cn tags and it's otherwise well sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, no maintenance tags. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(Decision needed) 2023 Greece wildfires

 * This *should* be under the 2023 heat waves article that has been proposed as a topic or ongoing but which has not seen much improvement or getting close to posting. I would Oppose this as an isolated event from that heat wave article since there were no deaths, and there have been dozens of heat-related wildfires in the world to do this year.
 * Also the blurb is completely missing the wildfire part which is a key driver. M asem (t) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Emergency alerts were sent to residents on the island to warn them of the wildfires and to evacuate." Technology stopped the deaths but can't stop the fire. Well 1 death, 20 injured, 600 million euro damage and rising. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is but one wildfire in the world as part of the heat waves, and the only reason this one is getting coverage is that Greece doesn't get frequent wildfires, and the images of thousands of tourists trying to flee. TEXTURING this wildfires while letting others go unnoticed is absolutely an example of extreme bias in the news that we should avoid. M asem (t) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Major news with large impact on the tourist industry in one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. I don't think this can be directly linked to the 2023 heat waves because it's a common misconception that heat waves cause wildfires (they may pose a major difficulty in the process of extinguishing the fires, but the most common reasons are arson and lightning).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RS are clearly linking the wildfires to the heat wave that creates conditions for small sparks to spread quickly and unpredictably Its the same situation in Canada and the US. M asem  (t) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I have suggested an alt blurb which isnt focused entirely on tourists in Rhodes (as there have also been evacuations elsewhere), even though "tourists flee hotels" is the angle most English news outlets are taking. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's a bit light on info and heavily oversectioned (the international assistance could take up less screen space with a single table, for example), but I think there's enough here for the main page. Prefer altblurb for concision and more encyclopedic tone.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, though it is on an important and widely reported issue. The article needs to be fleshed out more. Right now it reads like a telegram noting locations of fires and how many firefighter other countries sent. I find that a bit thin. Yakikaki (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose Multiple uncited claims, mostly in the international assistance section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the article needs quality updates. The Kip (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on significance per masem. Weak oppose on quality as well, a few uncited statements/paragraphs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is part of the global heat wave and is not significant enough on its own. Not a large death toll. Tradedia talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least on quality. Way too many unsourced statements. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(Decision needed) 2023 Cambodian general election

 * Oppose - sham election, and the article doesn't make this clear. Some international reactions (if anyone has even bothered paying attention) would be a start. We can post an ITN item when/if the current leader hands power to his son. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There was a similar discussion a few days ago where WP:IAR was used to justify not posting sham elections. The article's lead doesn't make the sham quality clear enough IMO. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as precedent holds that sham elections are posted (c.f. Russia, Uzbekistan, etc.) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle We have poste·d parliamentary election that are neither free nor fair in the past, but the blurb has to be worded carefully (not a fan of the current blurb); in this case, an opposition party even broke through and was able to win several seats. Results table needs updating, and would like some more international reactions/condemnation besides just the US. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be included in the article: "Hun Sen issues threat to Cambodians who spoiled ballots". Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough in the article illustrates/gives context to its rigged nature. The Kip (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per The Kip. Once updated, I will support. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb (which I added), showing its rigged nature. Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Supportaltblurb, informative, well expanded article and ITN/R Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposing ALT2 based on this breaking news. Open to changes, however. The Kip (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support to include that Hun Sen's successor Hun Malet is his son in the blurb to tacitly underline the unfairness of the electionsParadise Chronicle (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose a table in the results section needs a source. Support alt 2 when fixed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - ALT2 should say "announces his resignation in favour of his son, Hun Manet" rather than "announces his resignation in favor of Hun Manet". I'd go with ALT2 - though given the rigged (as usual) election, I'm neutral on this being ITN. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. More content is needed in regards to the election's aftermath. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's Nations League

 * Oppose for now based on article quality. Table farm with very little prose describing the event.  More overview is needed.  Would support if that were fixed.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Nations League does not appear to be the sport's main international championship, as FIVB also has the World Cup and World Championship. Given that FIFA's minor championships for men's soccer aren't also posted, it'd be only fair to reserve the right for other sports to be similarly limited.  Sounder Bruce  22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * we post individual continental championships and the nations league, as well as certain domestic club competitions, so this is not true. We also post the 4 Grand Slams in tennis not just the Davis Cup and certain golfing events. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I should amend my statement to say FIFA's minor intercontinental tournaments. The FIFA Confederations Cup and similar competitions are not posted.  Sounder Bruce  03:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SounderBruce. The Kip (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose notability per Sounderbruce. Oppose on quality as the article just has a bunch of tables. It needs more prose. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 British Open

 * Comment A handful of unsourced sentences/paragraphs but nearly all there in terms of good balance of prose to tables for this. M asem (t) 00:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article seem to be up to the level of the previous majors now. Since its a ITN/R, it shouldn't take long to get support. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has a solid amount of prose and seems to be good quality otherwise. The Kip (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Criteria and exemptions subsection needs clearing up and clarifying, very confusing; maybe a table like for the others would be better?. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - well-cited and good looking article, should be posted soon ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after splitting the criteria and exemptions section to a new article per WP:DETAIL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality for a sports article and event is ITN/R. concerns seem to be addressed and consensus seems achieved, so anyone willing to consider posting? Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 12:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Tour de France

 * Comment Back of the race is completely absent from "Race overview" (assuming I'm reading all the tables right). Needs to be added, but the rest of the article seems ready to go once that's done. M asem (t) 00:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will work on it today. Turini2 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have written the lead section - the article now looks good to me! Turini2 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I have added the time trial and the two decisive mountainous stages of week three and the final stage as well. So back of the race overview is included now. I will expand week two a bit to balance it out.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Most famous cycling event, and an international event. 2607:9880:2D28:108:453C:13F1:EDA4:394C (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Every stage has been summarized now & it's well-referenced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Plenty of good prose on the background and the whole race, a good quality well-sourced article. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, A significant event and the article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  05:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Spain general election

 * Response to nominator's comments. It won't be a PP/VOX government as they're around 10 seats short of a majority, unless they form a minority government or form a bigger coalition which includes others as well. Could very much end up in a grand left-wing coalition government too. The blurb may very well need changing a lot potentially as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Isn't this ITN/R? But wait because the ultimate result is not yet decided. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's ITN/R. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait results section need be filled. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment regardless of the current state, the identifier "conservative" needs to be removed from the blurb. I know the story is the concern that this is establishing a far-right majority in the Spanish gov't, but here at ITN, we're not to politicize these things, we don't do this for other elections. --M asem (t) 23:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Until all the results come out. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and added altblurb2. We know which party received the most votes, and that is what we post. As to who actually "won" is very much up to interpretation and analysis, as is often the case in multi-party democracies with outcomes needing coalition agreements to secure a majority. Added a blurb in the forms usually used for elections in such situations. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 as the better blurb and withdrawing altblurb 2.
 * Comment From what I'm hearing, if PSOE can't form a grand-left coalition, then there is likely to be another election in the fall, which is what happened in both 2015 and 2019. PP is unlikely to form a majority government here, as that would involve a coalition between Vox and the separatists, who are opposed to each other. This is still ITN/R, but I think putting the focus on PP in the blurb right now gives a false impression of where the results actually are. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 or 4 Still ITN/R, and the article looks pretty good. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Preference for ALT6. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, and leaning oppose, we'd better blurb the new government once it assumesParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with a blurb like "... receives the most votes". This is in the news now, and a government might take months to form.  Sandstein   09:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 This best describes the outcome of the election, without being editorialized. At this point you can't meaningfully say more about what government will be formed, and we might not know for several months, especially if there is another election. Gust Justice (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support modified Alt 3; use "the most votes" for "plurality" per MOS:COMMONALITY. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment your nomination was a duplicate of this. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt 4. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurbs 4 or 6 The article looks good & alt blurb 4's the most accurate description of what happened. Since it looks like there's a hung parliament, Idk if there should be a picture of Feijóo. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 Article looks ready. They are not so indecisive. Seeing the positions of the different parties, what is evident is that the Popular Party does not have enough support (and will not have), support that tends to move towards the PSOE, whose parliamentary support it had in 2020 tends to be reedited. With the ghost of the electoral repetition present, of course. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose altblurb 3 I don't think "receives" should replace "wins" because it's a fact that the People's Party won the most votes. The only uncertainty is whether it'd be enough to form a government, which is not our business at this moment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you could argue also that they lost because they did not receive enough votes to govern, which in a way is how you win an election. Having the most votes isn't necessarily the same as winning. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The results of the general elections are on ITN/R, not the outcome of the ensuing process of government formation. Note that we’ve posted multiple election winners in the past that failed to form a government. Having the most votes in a Spanish general election translates to most seats won and the right to form a government. So, it’s the same as winning the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All the blurbs proposed here show the results of the general election though. My argument is that in this instance this isn't a win if the opposition has a bigger chance to form a government due to the result of the election. We posted large coalition formations previously and worded it as altblurb3 when unclear before too. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The opposition didn’t form a coalition that won the election, and whether it has a bigger chance to form a government lies on a crystall-ball territory (What if the People’s Party manages to form a government with the smaller parties?). Furthermore, words such as “receive” are inappropriate even for sham elections, not to mention fair and free elections in democratic countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Summon admin as consensus seems to be in favor of posting This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, noting that the consensus is for ALT3, with ALT6 (which I personally prefer) coming second.  Schwede 66  03:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It already rolled off barely a few hours later - any way we can expand to five blurbs for a short period? The Kip (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vince Hill

 * Conditional Support pretty well-cited otherwise, but the discography needs more citations ❤History Theorist❤  21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree; in its current state, it's not good enough.  Schwede 66  03:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something something sourcing. Discography still remains mostly uncited. Plays section is fully uncited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Destruction of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa

 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. --M asem (t) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose' - covered by ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Eh... Why the hell was this snow-closed after what seems like just an hour? It's Sunday - people have lives aside from checking Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I would have appreciated it this could have been kept open for some more time - I personally might have supported given the damage caused to part of the Odesa World Heritage site. For all the destruction caused in Ukraine so far, this is a sad new highlight. It would have been nice to give people the opportunity to make the case for this nomination. Khuft (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see some non-trivial significance because the airstrikes damaged a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Historic Centre of Odesa. But the article has been tagged for updating since February 2023. Brandmeistertalk  18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd agree that the ongoing item shouldn't be seen as all-encompassing. If atrocities take place that are very bad, it would be appropriate to mention them. I'm not sure this event quite reaches that level, though. Blythwood (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment excessively fast close per above. Nonetheless, Oppose on the merits This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this post was closed early as per above, however, given that the event is covered by ongoing, I would still Oppose. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reopened. Stephen 22:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close - covered by ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, leaning Strong support. Major world heritage site. Odesa was relatively unscathed until the past week. This is like the first Kerch Bridge bombing. Not infrastructure, but religion is a major issue to both sides in the conflict. This is like when Notre Dame Cathedral was burned down, but imagine if it was done deliberately. Wait for a few more !votes. 142.116.141.121 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Third Strong Close and Eighth Overall Oppose Imagine if men, women and children were bombed, scathed and burned down deliberately. "Wait", you don't have to. It's also "ongoing"; war is Hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with previous supporter. Major component of Odesa World Heritage Site severely damaged, which resulted in UNESCO "strongly condemning" Russian actions (first time they explicitly did so, I believe). I get it, everything is part of ongoing, but we've done exceptions for major events in the past. And it would be nice once in a while to feature news from the Cultural sphere. Khuft (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reopened after tried to close it again. Support per Khuft. Stop closing this, this is far from SNOW and we need to be a bit more judicious as to which discussions we rush to close, because most of the time, consensus isn't as clear as it might appear after just a few hours. Let it run. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I just like to point out that this is apparently covered by WP:GS/RUSUKR, which apparently means that all votes from non-extended confirmed users (including myself) should be disregarded. YD407OTZ (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * CommentSorry for closing, didn't see it was reopened. I just saw the at the time large majority of oppose votes and didn't believe this will make the turn around. Anyhow, there are still three unsourced paragraphs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per above. Consensus isn’t going to change here. The Kip (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sherry Ayittey

 * Needs a bit of ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * References have been improved. Better now? If not kindly point out the areas for improvement thanks. Ampimd (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost.  Schwede 66  03:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost ready, but not quite. Early life still needs a bit of citation work. ❤History Theorist❤  05:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A handful of {cn} tags still remaining. Please add more footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has a lot of details & it looks like everything’s referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UN World Food programme member killed

 * Comment This is not how ITN works. You need to first have an article. Then you propose a blurb at ITN, where editors will judge the blurb based on quality of article and significance of event. Tradedia talk 15:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and snow close No article, a theoretical article doesn’t seem to
 * meet WP:EVENTCRIT (tragic but looks fairly routine given the civil war in Yemen), and even if there was an article the event just simply doesn’t seem significant enough for ITN. I don’t think this nom is going anywhere so I’m suggesting a snow close. For the nominator if this is your first nom don’t be discouraged, keep trying. I also recommend you read How ITN works (and how it doesn’t), it’s a good essay that’ll inform you about common practice in ITN. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ill be sure to read it!  Abo Yemen ✉  17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow close. Create article first Kirill C1 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's not even an article, this seems insignificant, and given that there isn't even a article, must I explain further? Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * DBN  Abo Yemen ✉  19:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Ivie

 * Weak support Article lede mentions he played outfield and designated hitter, which isn't mentioned in the article (which discusses well his switch from catcher to first base), but otherwise meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I took that line out, since I don't think it was "considerable". I added a little more other content too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready I placed two citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  03:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support citations look much better now, but the article is a bit thin on information, but not too thin for me to oppose nomination ❤History Theorist❤   — Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  20:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Washington Commanders sale

 * In my opinion it isn't. Sales ard happening every day, someone will hold a record.. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye. In this case, the actual majority holder is the Danaher Corporation. There might be something to this proposal, but I'm not seeing Tony Bennett's photo getting upstaged by a living person I've heard even less about. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The photo was not meant to upstage any existing photo. Its source is also unknown and will be replaced by something better once the option is available. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And my comment wasn't intended to accuse you (or whomever might have nominated this), it's just what would happen, matter of coursely. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Including a photo that you know can't be used seems... well, absurd. Just don't add a photo to the nomination. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t see the significance. Sports teams have basically become status symbols for rich people and thus prices are inflated significantly (although the value of sports has actually increased). There will always be sports team sales and people looking to display their wealth among other reasons and with the increased competition and interest sports team sale records will eventually be broken. We can’t just post it every time that happens and we didn’t even nominate the last record-breaking sports team sale (Todd Boehly buying Chelsea). I know Triple C is a thing but I’m just saying. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, Triple H is also a thing and the sports franchise he leads is (tentatively) worth nine big ones. Yes, it's entertainment. But it's still sports entertainment to me, dammit. Not a dealbreaker. Just maybe it should read "team" instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t even notice my omission of team from other two instances haha. Thanks for telling me! Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that, either, but now that you mention it, sports sale is technically undefined here. Kind of sounds like a sporting goods sale and kind of like what you meant. Could go either way, honestly...but that's a worry for another day, you're welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's something of a niche "record" and it's one that could very well be overtaken quite quickly with the sale of Manchester United; I don't see that we could keep posting these every time it happens. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that relevant outside this sport. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Washington Commanders? Never heard of them... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW Not front-page news, and a record that will be broken repeatedly for many years to come. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how the sale of a local club, in a national league of a sport only played in a single nation, is notable. Maybe if it was well-known and moving to a place far away; but selling a franchise in a top league is a dime-a-dozen. I'd think that a sale like they controversial sale of Chelsea, or the selling of Newcastle to the Saudi government would be more notable - but still not ITN; at least it'd have wider coverage. It's a big amount, but it's not that dissimilar to the sale price of Chelsea, or the Denver Broncos last year. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Malú Urriola

 * Support Article looks good (assuming good faith on Spanish sources). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine Alex-h (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good enough to post. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  03:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian O'Neill

 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  03:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Articles appears to be well-cited, and I am quite impressed with how in-depth the article covers his career in just three paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) Blurb/RD: Tony Bennett

 *  Support  you just beat me to the nom ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Support RD, Weak Oppose Blurb per Humbledaisy below. Personally, I feel like we are going a bit overboard with blurbing RD's lately ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs
 * Blurb - easy pass on quality, merits a blurb on significance, seeing as the Washington Post and NYTimes already have obits, and Id expect BBC with its breaking news alert to follow shortly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support blurb There are a handful of last sentences on paragraphs in his bio about more recent performances that are unsourced but that these could be removed. RD is clearly ready, I really want to support a blurb because this is a case that should clearly have a blurb, but really would like to see some type of section about impact/legacy, which should be possible from the obits that are coming out (eg career spanning many generations and musical styles, influence to other singers, etc.), this is not a case where I think the importance is being handwaved but it really needs to be documented on its own in the article itself. --M asem (t) 12:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically, currently "Great American Songbook" -which Bennett is nominally credited for and supporting through his career, only appears once and in a parenthetical. This is clearly part of a legacy that needs to be discussed from the obits. --M asem (t) 13:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, support blurb Not really much to be said. Article is a GA and is excellent in terms of length, depth and sourcing. I also think it’s worth a blurb as well, due to the quality of the article (although some extra work to establish the sui generis significance needed for a blurb in the article itself would be nice) and the notability of the person. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Eight decades (or more?) career,   twenty Grammys, large than life personality, what else should be for blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Taking a quick look at the article, there are paragraphs and lines without sources. It needs to be revised. I think Bennett is one of the most deserving of a blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed up by adding sources. Are there any more areas that need sourcing?
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just added a CN tag in Personal life section. Nothing serious. Thanks for your work! _-_Alsor (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, but the article contains unreferenced lines of text (it's very weird that this is a GA).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It even had unsourced text when it became a GA in 2009. Things were different then.  Weak Support by the way, when quality issues are resolved; Bennett seems to be right on the borderline of ITNability. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried adding some more sourced to the article. The recent obits have been a great help to fix up his article.
 * TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article is excellent and is GA. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support blurb Bennett was an influential singer with a career that lasted for decades and won numerous of accolades. The article is in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Slam-dunk nom, extremely influential and long-lasting career in the world of music. Article needs some quality fixes, however. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RD posted Consensus that quality is met. Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Tony obviously had a long and distinguished career, but I think the last man standing factor might have magnified his cultural significance somewhat. He was not quite the top in his field during the 1950s-1960s height of his career; his peak roughly coincided the commercial and critical peaks of the likes of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby and Perry Como. I don’t think he’d be getting considered for a blurb if those performers hadn’t predeceased him. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Had Sinatra or Perry Como died when Wikipedia already existed they would have been blurbed, I don't understand the argument. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb mostly per Humbledaisy. A popular and well-known figure in the entertainment world but not quite in the top tier. The article is in excellent shape (for a change) and certainly good enough for RT. But a blurb is not warranted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If he wasn't in top tier, then who was? Kirill C1 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Sinatra, who achieved almost 40 US top 20 studio albums over the 1950s and 60s. Bennett made 27 studio albums in the 50s and 60s and just six of them made the US top 40 (only I Left My Heart in San Francisco charted in the UK). Only one album charted in the 50s. Obviously he was successful, but he didn't have the kind of sustained success I'd say would qualify as top tier. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sinatra died long time ago.
 * We blurbed both Elizabeth II and dos Santos, and both Kumar and Sidney Poitier, and Tina Turner and Indian singer. We blurb different people, it is not like only one person qualifies for each field. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my point in my earlier comment on this nomination - if Sinatra and co were not long dead, we would not be considering Bennett. It is his longevity that has made him appear more prominent than he was, IMO. Your mileage may vary but Sinatra, Martin, Como et al all have recordings that are still intensely well-known today, at least in the Anglophone sphere, and I don't think Bennett's best-known recordings are quite at that level of recognition. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m more familiar w/Bennett than I am w/Como. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD This is a well-written article and I saw no {cn} or orange tags when I checked it. As for the blurb, I am leaning towards strong support earlier but I think Humbledaisy raised a good point; however, I am still voting weak support blurb because although Sinatra, Como, Cole, etc. were clearly more famous than him and had more lasting legacies, I think his longevity in the music industry is enough to warrant a blurb (albeit less convincing than the others that were blurbed/not blurbed in the past; the discussion re: Barbara Walters last December/January comes to mind.) Vida0007 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb This person does seem to be a very well known figure over in America, article is in great condition, and person is very influential with a very long career in the Music industry. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I was on the fence until remembering that what I think of his legacy shouldn't matter. Reading obituaries mentioning his singing for presidents and royalty, winning 20 Grammys, having #1 albums a half-century apart, taking part in civil rights marches... the importance and relevance are there. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Singing for presidents and royalty, winning 20 Grammys and having #1 albums a half-century apart is a rather extraordinary achievement. Even doing one of those things could set a person apart from his or her peers, regardless of age at death. But taking part in civil rights marches is all about blending in with the crowd, which is why the title characters from the Million Man March, Million Woman March and even Million People March are largely unsung. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nothing about the death requires the extra explanation that a blurb provides. All that needs to be said is that he died.  RD is designed exactly for that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't we recently put up a blurb for Milan Kundera? All it says is "Czech-French writer Milan Kundera dies at the age of 94." Then why can't we do the same for Tony? <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb for Kundera should never have been posted in the first place. Same with Bennett. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Same for everyone whose "story" is just a truncated version of their lead (past, present and future). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an idea that with RD blurbs, we should be able to include a 6-10 word phrase that succinctly gets the reason the person who is important across quickly. Eg for Bennett "who popularized the "Great American Songbook" over five decades" or something like that. I'm sure wordsmiths could make that tighter. But I would think we need to brainstorm how to do this first on the talk page. But I do see the valid issue that if we are just saying "X dies at the age of YY", that's not really any more helpful than an RD line mention. M asem (t) 01:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The main RD page covers this death as Tony Bennett, 96, American singer ("I Left My Heart in San Francisco", "Rags to Riches", "Because of You"), 20-time Grammy winner. We could replace the final comma and add "dies" to end our copy or could go Photo RD or could let the established necrology exclusively do its job. I think all of these fine ideas have been pitched at Talk, in various words, to no avail. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Blurb Household name, and an excellent opportunity to prominently feature a GA on the main page. SunsetShotguns (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, and Post Support RD Bennett is one of the rare cases where the article is a GA, and his legacy crossed several generations. From his hit making days in the 50's and 60's, his strong popularity with many of his time (I.e, can think of think of Sinatra saying something along the lines of "Money's worth" to see him preform.), and the many modern day artists he's worked with or influenced (Lady Gaga, Amy Winehouse), and winning 20 Grammys, seems to me blurb written to a t. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He has accomplished way more than enough to deserve this. Grammy and chart topper across the decades if not the better part of the century. CoatCheck (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I also think both the article and Bennett's career have all they need to deserve a mention. It's quite a shame he never achieved that kind of fame in Europe, as well, but still, he was definitely an important figure within American music. Oltrepier (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - GA article, multi-generational icon, ITN blurb consensus clear. Jusdafax (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No issues with sourcing now (although there shouldn't be cites in the lede—why are they there?), and his strong significance merits a blurb. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply&#59; thanks!) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The article’s quality is good enough & his career merits a blurb. He easily merits a blurb if Kundera deserves a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Blurb Article quality is sufficient. Leading figure in his field. Household name. Popular appeal and public interest are inadequately weighted in death blurbs and RD. Dr Fell (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb Stephen 00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Serious question Have we come up with sensible rules about blurbing old, dead people yet? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * “Awarded” to HiLo48 for breathtaking lack of clue and general insensitivity to consensus. Take to the Talk page, if you must. Not here. Jusdafax (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, no need for another Talk, we've already decided to decide anew each time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, still no rules. It sure looked that way here. The absence of rules will inevitably lead to a seeming lack of sensitivity. How long can we keep up this idiocy? HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an unwritten rule I've noticed about getting five or more Ayes or Nays in a row, seems to seal the deal, loosely speaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, that seems to be the case. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Trout seconded. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull Never heard of him before now.Fdfexoex (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He made duets with Stevie Wonder and Sting, among other things. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very bad argument. Imagine opposing a blurb of, let's say, George Michael, dying, just because you've never heard of him. Granted, everyone's heard of George Michael, but that's basically your entire "pull" argument. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull It happens Not on any of The Rat Pack's "level" (among other still well-regarded crooners of yore). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he is more famous than Joey Bishop or Lawford.
 * And there are 22 votes for blurb and 5 opposes. There was a clear consensus before posting. You could have voted then, I mean. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins are supposed to assess the content and quality of comments, NOT count votes. Otherwise I could just get 50 of my friends to agree with me here. Or post under 50 aliases. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's check content of an oppose comment "Oppose blurb Nothing about the death requires the extra explanation that a blurb provides. All that needs to be said is that he died. RD is designed exactly for that."
 * I have to give it to Jayron, he is consistent in his opinion and uses the same argument always. But this is not what is written in guidelines, because this concerns one blurb type, where death is the story, and there is another one, for which we blurbed Sidney Poitier, Milan Kundera, Tina Turner, Jim Brown recently. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there ARE guidelines? Where? HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths
 * There are Death as news story and Major figure types of blurbs.
 * Here is major figure type. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So how do we unarguably identify a major figure? Don't say "consensus". It obviously doesn't work, because so many editors read that as counting votes, which we must not do. And such an approach would eliminate almost everyone not from a popular activity in the US or the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in my household, he isn't (though his most famous song gets more play than any Lawford movie). And I could only have voted in time in theory. In practice, I wasn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw your replies to posts and didn't check time code. Indeed, they were done after the posting of article. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I knew it! I'm not the only one, either. It happened with that Czech guy whose best book I believe most English readers only saw the movie about, it happened to the guy who got this Pull rolling and it'll happen to you one day, too. It's as unenviable a position as it is inevitable. Anyway, since you were so kind as to admit your mistake, I've given y'all a pass on my end of the Pull, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Raigad Landslide

 * Oppose - not seeing the long-term significance of this. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  02:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the death toll seems insignificant on ITN, there seems to be no long-term significant impact, and this only seems to affect Maharashtra. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is already a blurb for Indian flooding and landslides. Stephen 02:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Northern Indian. Maybe this could be worked in, the toll combined and the qualifier removed. But maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I don’t see how this event is that significant right now, but can be persuaded if further developments occur. Quality wise the article isn’t the worst but still needs a good amount of work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  02:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs article improvement but support updating the related blurb to reference both articles once ready. - Indefensible (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now based solely on article quality. It's quite light on information.  If the article were expanded to a more appropriate depth-of-coverage, I could fully support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article's not much more than a stub. Undecided on notability, but leaning oppose. The Kip (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This does not seem to be a significant event and the article is too short. Alex-h (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bambang Kristiono

 * Comment: One CN tag; otherwise, has appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support.  Spencer T• C 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again and again these incredibly minor figures from Indonesia keep popping up in this section. The same with old Indonesian movies and such in the featured articles. Indonesia isn't even an English speaking nation. So why on earth do this? Who cares? Nabend1401 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  03:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Merrill J. Fernando

 * I am sorry folks. Something came up irl, and I am unable to work on this one. The article is not too far off. Appreciate if someone can take a look at this one and take it forward. Ktin (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. He's quite a significant person. I've added a bit more, and more sources. Also updated the Dilmah article the other day. Could be too late though?
 * Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Bill Geddie

 * Comment: Article lists info in lede that is not mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article (e.g. May Avenue Productions, Barbara Walters show); could use expansion to include information on those shows.  Spencer T• C 04:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like there are enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have REFS for his many Emmys and Emmy noms, please? Please add footnotes. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matei-Agathon Dan

 * Weak oppose for now. Article has some quality issues; it reads like a machine translation given the awkward phrases it uses in places ("suspended himself" rather than the "resigned"), has some capitalization issues, inconsistent use of the hyphen in his name, and could use some expansion, a 1-paragraph biography seems a bit light.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready Needs more work; had to place a citation needed tag.  Schwede 66  04:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now a footnote in the main prose for the date and place of the subject's birth. No {cn} tags remaining. -- PFHLai (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like the article’s quality & the references are good enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  20:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Mirko Novosel

 * Oppose RD and blurb Article is in poor quality for even RD. In terms of blurb, I cannot see how Novosel was influential in his field and the article does not reflect that either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD for now Sadly, this is an undersourced stub and cannot be posted like this. It should not be a blurb merely for being famous in Croatia or a member of the FIBA HoFer. Individuals listed at List of members of the FIBA Hall of Fame are not automatic blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not created by me. The creator was User:Karaboom, in this edit.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD until article is improved Mooonswimmer 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality, as it's missing a ton of references. Strong oppose blurb per Muboshgu. The Kip (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD at the moment, as the article is quite brief and unsourced; I think we can SNOW the possibility of a blurb, since that will obviously not occur, so it's not worth discussing. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in poor condition for RD, let alone a blurb. lots of unsourced stuff in the article, will need to be improved for RD, and I think we can just forget the blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD on quality Blurbwise I don’t see how he deserves a blurb and the article doesn’t indicate how this person was influential, he just seems like a famous basketball player and nothing more. As for RD the article is pretty stubby and extremely sparsely sourced, needs a lot of work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  02:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb & RD He isn’t notable enough as a player or coach for a blurb & the article’s quality isn’t good enough to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, He fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready It's still a stub and has a long way to go before it's ready for RD.  Schwede 66  04:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still too stubby with only 195 words of prose and running out of time/eligibility for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Benedict

 * Support Impressively well-cited for an actor's article. The Kip (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited indeed ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Birth date could use a better source but it isn't something that would hold up the RD. Mooonswimmer 19:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  04:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Point of Order ITNSPORTS says ongoing nominations like these typically fail and to wait for a winner. An exception was made for the 2019 Women's World Cup, but that's it. So far, anyway. This is not an Oppose vote. Just saying it's not guaranteed (even if the article is written well and updated continually). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since 2014, all FIFA World Cups have been added to ongoing (see: 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2022). Happily888 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are the FIFA World Cups, unqualified, and even those discussions had to work for it; no free passes and no green banners. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see this World Cup won in 2015, but my point mostly stands, case-by-case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO the ongoing nomination should not have the ITN/R template (the policy cited in ITNSPORTS states that 'FIFA World Cup is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry.', but it's unclear whether this includes the Women's World Cup as well, nor is a discussion cited, and all previously linked ongoing nominations have not had the ITN/R template). Given that both World Cups have been posted consistently to ongoing, a separate talkpage discussion to be able to cite for future reference could be worthwhile. 107.203.253.33 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support No-brainer this really; there is precedent for doing so, article is on good quality and is being maintained, and there is a fixed end-point that it can be removed on. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and removed the errant ITNR tag. Consensus discussion on the subject is that while a great many sporting events may be described as "ongoing" only the absolute highest in interest would actually be listed as such.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the tournament that is higher in interest in women's football than this one is...? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't pretend like you didn't understand my comment then prompt for a response like you are engaging in discourse. It's not civil.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was actually a genuine question ... but whatever. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah come on, I am curious as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I was against posting the 2022 FIFA World Cup onto ongoing but, given it’s been posted, this should be as well. There also seems to be a good precedent for doing so.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The Kip (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to have been done uncontroversially in the past, and the target article seems to be in good shape. I don't see where there is any qualification on "Men's but not Women's" in the statement "The FIFA World Cup is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry."  This is a FIFA World Cup; and this reflects practice, given that every such World Cup has been posted to ongoing since 2014 (without regard to gender).  I don't see any reason to break that standard just for this year.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The" suggests "one" to me. "A" could be better, but also potentially worse since I don't think the community is ready to accept the under-20s as equally important to those over. That said, Support per posting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gender does not equal quality. Not forcing expected gender into text that doesn't exist is not the same as not understanding that the under-20 tournament is not the same as the top-level tournament.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is the primary topic for FIFA World Cup is just that, and everything else that can be considered a FIFA World Cup is in FIFA World Cup. But yes, there's nothing stopping any ongoing sports event article from conveying high-quality information in a timely manner, if given the chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quality looks good, and ongoing was created on part to feature topics like the Workd Cup. --M asem (t) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per discussion and precedent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Beat me to posting by mere seconds. Let this serve as a post-posting strong support. Kicking222 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats We have about |2019_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup|2022_FIFA_World_Cup|2018_FIFA_World_Cup|2020_Summer_Olympics|2016_Summer_Olympics|2022_Winter_Olympics|2019_Cricket_World_Cup|2018_Winter_Olympics 8 years of detailed stats now so FYI here's how such big sporting events have performed over the years. The women's event seems comparable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Auckland shooting

 * Support alt Ec'd on the nom, but added alt that doesn't mention World Cup. Support as creator and per nom comment. Apparently the World Cup was not the perp's motivation (hence alt), but he certainly picked a time and place to make an international scene (hence support). Also, there's been 6 (if I can count) mass shootings in New Zealand, take that information however you want. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three people dead, though, including the perpetrator, who I suggest should be included in the count.  Schwede 66  01:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been thankfully quite a while since we've posted an attack incident, I can't remember if we usually include perps in the body count. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there's no reason to suspect that this will have sustained notability. I wouldn't support posting this if it happened in the US, so I see no reason to support this because it happened elsewhere. It just sounds like a crazy person with a gun, unless the world cup was related to this person's choice to do it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support if it happened in the US either, but it did not happen in the US, and in terms of shootings, location is newsworthy context. I do not think this would be in the (real) news at all if it happened in the US. There's a chance it wouldn't really scratch the surface if it was in Paris or London, either. Likewise, while the World Cup was apparently not a motive, I do not think this would be getting as extensive live coverage in the news if it did not happen where and when it did specifically. The newsworthiness is very affected by context in this case. Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already ruled not related to terrorism or the like, and thus sounds like a normal domestic crime with no connection to the Women's Cup. --M asem (t) 02:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not terrorism, not WWC related, not significant. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt (but prefer three dead and six injured) Not natural causes, not an act of God, good to mix things up. The coverage is certainly there. The article's fairly brief, as are the "flooding and landslides" ones; no glaring problems. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A young man lost control and killed two people with a shotgun, and ended up dead himself. This does not meet most definitions of a mass shooting. No connection has yet been established with the athletic event taking place nearby. This is a run-of-the-mill murder. The article has serious undue weight issues. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't in the US, where these things are common. Secretlondon (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A young man also shot six people with a shotgun who lived to tell about it. Victim impact statements can go a long way in a coroner's inquest. And an inquest can have some pretty drastic effects on gun laws. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't see how this is notable. If the death count was higher I'd most likely look at this an other way, but 2 deaths is pretty insignificant (although tragic nonetheless) for ITN. TwistedAxe   [contact]  08:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article seems to be very WP:COATRACKy, conflating other events that were close in space and time, but otherwise unrelated, to the subject. The article has only about 10 sentences about the shooting itself, including information about the killer themselves and about the response.  There's not a lot here to hang a blurb on, really.  It's a horrific, tragic event, but unless the article can be expanded significantly, about the event itself and its significance, I'm not sure it merits the main page.  If more information comes out that allows us to expand the article significantly, I would be willing to change my vote.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt Context is important, whilst this event wouldn't be notable in the US, it definitely is if country has very low mass shooting rates were to have one. Happily888 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is quite short when you remove the chunk about its effect on the Women's World Cup, and otherwise, it barely meets the definition of a mass shooting as it is. Agree with above that sustained notability is likely to be low. The Kip (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While gun violence is relatively uncommon in New Zealand (though not as unheard of as some might assume), this incident isn't particularly notable. The "Women's World Cup" section is unnecessary, as the shooting was unrelated to the event, despite headlines suggesting a connection.Mooonswimmer 19:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Darrel Aschbacher

 * Weak support The career section could be a bit bigger, but the article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a 60 year gap between his career and his death. That concerns me more than the length of the career section., can you add anything about his post-career life? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Got a sentence out of the obit about him serving as a pilot, but it seems there's very little out there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That'll do. It's not much, but I assume it's all that's out there. Support and marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready Unreferenced date of birth.  Schwede 66  04:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Date & Place of Birth are now next to a footnote. -- PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was already verified by PFR in the infobox, but now we've got an in-text citation as well. Do you think its ready now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted No, it had not been verified; that was the exact issue. But that’s now been fixed.  Schwede 66  15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Reston Jr.

 * Support Article looks generally good, except for the one CN tag at the end. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. One cn tag in a vastly well sourced article shouldn't keep it from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Formation of opposition grand alliance in India

 * Support This is definitely a major political step in the largest democracy in the world and perhaps the largest coalition ever made. To illustrate how big is this, the aggregate number of votes that the parties making up this coalition won at the 2019 Indian general election is greater than the total turnout at the 2019 European Parliament election or the 2020 United States presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're literally just saying that India is a populous country.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. An event like this greatly affects nearly 1 billion voters. I'm not one to complain about American or Western bias on ITN, but I do feel like if this kind of event happened in the USA (if the USA was a multi-party democracy that is), it would probably be posted.PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Democrats joining the Republicans? You bet that would be worldwide news. A single-party system would alter the political trajectory of this country forever. Of course, the nomination would likely still be contentious, because of the usual apprehension towards U.S. political intrigue. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read too fast and realized you were referring to a multi-democracy system, or perhaps more likely, splinter parties in the United States merging into one. Still, it would be a big deal. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Another equivalent scenario would be a populist, right-wing party becoming dominant by a wide margin in US politics, leading to the Republicans, Democrats, and other small parties to enter a coalition to oppose them. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll support a similar story if China becomes a democratic country one day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The BJP led National Democratic Alliance is still bigger then the new INDIA alliance. So it is not the largest ever made party-wise. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the NDA is now bigger but not sure if it used to be at the time of its formation in 1998. That's why I used "perhaps".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually NDA's number of members doesn't actually matters very much here (IMO).
 * In INDIA, there maybe less parties, but there are more than one party which has major significance in Indian politics. TMC, AAP, JD(U), NCP, SP... these have significance in Indian politics, if not national then regional.
 * Also, it's the first time all major oppositions of the BJP has came under one coalition.
 * Now, BJP has been much powerful to rule India solely, and it's still the most major. And many analysts say that BJP is hard to defeat because 'opposition isn't united'. Now that's no more relevant. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait I think in general, these kinds of internal political machinations are best left for when such alliances and coalitions actually win elections. When they take the majority in the next general election, and when the next Prime Minister gets selected from said alliance, then we will have the time to post such a thing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much guaranteed we'll post the 2024 Indian election anyways. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A lot of people would oppose solely for the reason that this is really just domestic politics and has no widespread significance, but the fact that this has happened in the largest democracy in the world, with nearly 1 BILLION eligible voters, that's big news. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm very uninformed about India and its politics, this is a pretty unprecedented event.
 * Population isn't the only reason I support (this is In the News, article is being well updated), but it is a significant factor that elevates the notability of Indian affairs for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - This alliance of the 26 parties is a major event in the politics of India and it has quite significant representation in both the Lok Sabha (143/543) and Rayja Sabha (96/245) and could very well shape up to be a strong force against the NDA and, by extension, Modi's nearly decade long position as PM. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This could have some major political ramifications in the upcoming general election let alone in Modi's nearly decade tenure as PM. However, the later half of the article is unsourced. Once this is fixed, I can fully support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the orange tag. The article is a lacking some prose, but I'd be willing to support if the tag gets removed ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once fixed. I agree with the voices above. The depth and impact of this is quite significant, and it would be nice to post some India-related stories that aren't just disasters. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If Chandrayaan-3 successfully lands on the Moon, that’ll be an ITN/R story involving India that isn’t a disaster. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pre-election alliances are somewhat commonplace in the parliamentary system, and I do not recall another one being nominated previously. Being bias-averse, I would strongly object to breaking new ground due to the country's population, especially when that country is English-speaking.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are much aware of Indian politics in the recent decade(s).
 * This alliance isn't just a normal electoral coalition in a parliamentary democracy. In the last 14years, oppositions of the ruling BJP has never been this much united. They had feud within themselves. But it's the first time many years that parties which are actually enemies, have formed one grand alliance to take on the ruling coalition (In India). Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment; India is not an English speaking country, despite it being an official language in much of the country. Only 12% speak it fluently and 70% do not speak it at all. There are far more fluent English speakers in many other countries - 31 countries are rated as "High" or "Very High" in fluency and India is not amongst them, being rated 52nd out of 111. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, even if it were true, why would India being an English-speaking nation be relevant? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The concern specifically is bias in favor of locations where a substantial portion of our editors reside or identify with. Upon further review, I believe only the US and UK have such a significant proportion of editors as to raise this concern.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to be very much a work-in-progress. And it's interesting to read that Rahul Gandhi has been officially disqualified as a candidate while we ran a similar ban on Bolsonaro for weeks.  All such countries have political news every day and our general practise is to just report the most major results such as election outcomes and other changes of power. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot still be hung-up about the Bolsonaro blurb which had near unanimous support and was well within ITN tradition for former national leaders; comparing him to disqualified opposition leaders (never posted) is not really justified. Gotitbro (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The point in that case was that use of the law against opposition parties was commonplace. In this case, Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified while the INDIA acronym has already been reported to the police as an improper use of the country's name.  Meanwhile, the parties can't quite agree what it stands for -- D = Democratic or Developmental, depending on who you talk to.  As I said, it's a work-in-progress.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability - this is clearly important. Oppose on quality - not good enough yet. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see precedent for this, AFAIK we have not posted such coalition "announcements" ever before which only become significant (for us) at election time. Leaning oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wait what? A group of parties have agreed to form a coalition, but that coalition is not the government, as this coalition is still in the minority? These parties usually vote in opposition to the government anyway. So what? Coalitions are formed in nearly every election cycle in nearly every parliamentary multi-party system. Otherwise this is internal political machinations that is trivial to most people, including Indians. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is certainly notable, and this may as well be one of the largest political coalition ever made, once the article is fixed, this should be ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not even the largest coalition in India? That would be the governing coalition National Democratic Alliance with, checks notes, the majority in the Lok Sabha. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Questions What does "List of governments" mean, in context? Also, doesn't an alliance require multiple parties? And wouldn't "uniting" make them one? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nableezy and GreatCaesarsGhost. There’s nothing especially notable about this compared to other coalition formations, beyond the fact that India has a massive population. The Kip (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Question - did we post the turkish untiy coalition? this is awfully similar to that. it would set precedent. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't post something that wasn't nominated, and absence is not evidence of insignificance. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * oh. its a shame it wasnt nominated. Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; certainly a massive group of parties and from a diverse background. Oppose on article quality (referencing; disambiguation needed) and depth.  Schwede 66  01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. Unnotable. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not tracking the significance unless they, per Jayron32's comments, produce a PM to office. CoatCheck (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not even a formal coalition, it's an electoral alliance and these can be very short lived Abcmaxx (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Abcmaxx. Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait elections results Shadow4dark (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: DJ Deeon

 * Agree with nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article’s length, depth and sourcing appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Career section only has 6 sentences about his work, which IMO is a little bit too thin.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve expanded this part of the article, mind looking again? Oh and also can you look at Jerry Bradley’s nom from yesterday? It rolled over but looked ready so I hope you can consider WP:IAR posting it. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  06:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Hellawell

 * Oppose Article has 277 words and is too stubby for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready, this is fine now it has been expanded. Black Kite (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs work but is OK for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Paul Kamuza Bakyenga

 * Comment A lot of the article is cited to Catholic-Hierarchy, which is an unreliable source. Is there a source that can substitute this? Curbon7 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Oommen Chandy

 * Support Article looks well-cited and goes pretty in-depth about the subject. ❤History Theorist❤  04:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Close, but has some unreferenced tables and paragraphs.  Spencer T• C 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks OK. Alex-h (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has cn tags and unsourced tables. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Bressoud

 * Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  03:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shintaro Yokota

 * Support Article length clears bar for ITNRD standards. AGF on Japanese sources. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks alright, assuming good faith on Japanese sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  03:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2026 Commonwealth Games cancellation

 * Oppose Of course a cancelled R event is far less inherently noteworthy, it's the exact opposite, the parts our forepedians agreed make it special do not occur. And they don't occur in 2026 (unless something changes). Too soon for the event, too soon for the non-event. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The opening of the Commonwealth Games is listed as ITN/R, not the cancellation or any other related news. I've changed it in the nomination so that people don't get deluded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I disagree with InedibleHulk: the cancellation is equally as important. If the fact that it happens was deemed ITNR, then the fact that it won't happen (at this stage), is equally, if not more, noteworthy. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of international participation, live broadcast schedule and athletic contest greatly reduces the importance. Without that (or the tourism bump, sponsorship deals and souvenir programs), we're left with a state budget reallocation. While that's certainly different from a New York state legislative veto on a few levels, it's similar enough to make me think about snowclosing this as too local (I won't, though, out of respect to the nominator and good people of Victoria who probably deserve affordable housing). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "...too local" is a bit silly. This will be hitting the media in the 56 member nations of the Commonwealth, including India, with its population of 1.4 billion people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet it's nothing like the NYC veto. That involved the politics of one city. This, while of course political, affects every Commonwealth country. They'll go away and find a new host; that's not in doubt. But the fallout of this is far greater than a local housing bill. Global (although primarily Commonwealth) news outlets are saying this could spell the beginning of the end for the Games: Guardian, ABC, Reuters, CNN. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're talking to a card-carrying Canadian. The winning bid made the news here, too, and the time Durban fell through. Later, the replacement host will do the same again. We can't just post everything that involves a future event, no matter how convincing the alarmist speculation feels. Not without consensus, at least, no free pass. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (You got me on the city point, though, I misremembered the state and should have bothered checking.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support certainly in the British media. Secretlondon (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The games haven't been cancelled; the issue is that the host city is withdrawing. This happened last time to Durban and a replacement was found.  There will be efforts to find some other stopgap and there's years still to do this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Forget that this is related to an ITN/R item. This simply IS In The News! Of at least the 56 member nations of the Commonwealth, including India, with its population of 1.4 billion people. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a lot, but it's not all 56. Vanuatu doesn't even have news. Kiribati might, I barely checked. At least as far I can Google (first page of results), there's one story from India. It mentions Victoria, but then quickly moves on to things that actually happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Give it time. It's only ten hours since the announcement. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance Huge, very "whoa" event. This is probably the biggest sports event cancellation to date. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The cancellation of recurring sports events is highly notable simply on the basis that those events are usually recurring, and I find the statistical figures compelling. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Did we blurb the cancellation/postponement of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, as that was an arguably larger event? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question. We did post it, but it was kinda a fiasco with the posting and pulling and reposting and the debating/discussion in that nom. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose As noted above, only the host city has decided to pull out, that doesn't mean the event has been cancelled in whole. --M asem (t) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose If this was the cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games I'd definitely support. However at the moment it's only the host city pulling out. It is true unlike in 2017 with Durban, no one seems to be interested in stepping up at the moment and indeed many who could seem to (seem perhaps being the operative word) have ruled it out and for that and I guess other reasons (the state of the world economy and the economies of anyone large enough to host) there are talks it could lead to the cancellation but we don't know, I'm sure most of us have been around long enough to know that sort of idle speculation often happens and then (perhaps with some scaling back) it ends up going ahead. And I'm not convinced the host city pulling out is enough to post even if we did post its selection (if we did). I recognise there is a risk that the 2026 Games will die a slow death and even if there is eventually some announcement it's not going ahead we'll end up with a situation no one really cares since it's basically already been clear for a long time. But I'm not sure posting an item on the host city pulling out is the solution. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This [//www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66229577] might be of interest especially since it IMO touches on both sides of the include/exclude argument. It talks about how this could not only be the cancellation of the 2026 event but the risk to the games itself. But it also talks about how one of the reasons for that is the growing lack of interest and relevance. I also forgot to mention above another difference with 2017 Durban is the timeframe is a reasonable amount shorter. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Masem and Andrew. If it’s just the city pulling out of hosting then it doesn’t seem significant enough yet to me. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose per Masem. IF the games as a whole were cancelled I'd support per WaltClipper. I think the rare cancellation of an ITN/R event is surely notable ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the games are actually cancelled then of course support, if its just up in the air for now until a new host city/state can be found then meh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose i feel like india winning the 67th division of english cricket is way more important Massacreek (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support If the 2026 Commonwealth Games is cancelled/not held, can we be sure that there will be an announcement? It seems that a possible or even probable outcome is that 1 January 2026 arrives with no announcement, and then 2026 proceeds with no announcement. Then on 31 December 2026 or 1 January 2027 we could be sure that the event has been cancelled, but it won't be "in the news" because people would have assumed that the event would not be held. So for me, this is the appropriate time for an ITN posting. Chrisclear (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb to reflect that the Commonwealth Games have not (yet) been cancelled, but Victoria will not be the host. Chrisclear (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant for ITNR purposes. We are only interested in the holding or cancellation of the games, not the mere fact of changes in the hosts. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We usually post things as/when they happen to completion. Not notices, scheduling, planning or deliberative proceedings. CoatCheck (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, the news is Victoria isn't hosting in 2026, not that the games have entirely been cancelled, which may, granted, be forthcoming, but still that hasn't happened yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cancellation of a sport event short of the Olympics doesn't merit ITN, nor have the games even been cancelled, the host has just withdrawn This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the games are outright cancelled. For now, this is just the host pulling out. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The cancellation of some sports game does not merit the ITN, and from what I heard, it hasn't even been canceled, the host city just noped out. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not actually canceled, just without a host country. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 18:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, high quality update, topic is in the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing removal: 2023 Sudan conflict

 * I thought it was meant to counterbalance our undue attention on the Ukrainian conflict. Even if that wasn't the intent (not much intent was stated beyond "significant" and "ongoing"), it seems to me now that removing it would just reinforce our apparent preference. Maybe we should rather add one of the ones you mention are still ongoing, perhaps in the middle, where the soldiers and civilians aren't so black-and-white. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think keeping the Ukrainian conflict as the sole entry would violate WP:UNDUE given 1) its cross-border nature, 2) one of the parties is a nuclear-armed state, 3) much higher casualty figures than the Sudan conflict. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, perhaps highlighting the 2023 North American Indigenous Games might instead spread awareness of how 756 lesser-recognized nations settle their differences peacefully. It's not all war and disease going on, y'know? Quality isn't perfect. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Just so you know there’s a section of the itn blurb template you’re supposed to use for ongoing removals. “| ongoing      = rem” will make it an ongoing removal nom. Here’s an example of a proper ongoing removal nomination. Later note: Another editor has added the template now (would’ve done it myself but I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to so I decided to err on the side of caution.) Scientia potentia est,  -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @MonarchOfTerror and whomever BOLDly cleaned up my nom.; will know to use it the next time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Article does receive constant updates (at times several a day). Just check the history.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, seems to still be receiving major updates thanks largely to User:Borgenland. The UN announced they found a new mass grave with 87 victims just a few days ago. - Indefensible (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There are lots of comparable ongoing armed conflicts. There are three in the top tier of "major wars" and this isn't one of them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. Article is updated with news as of about 4-5 days ago, so it is still being updated.  Though if nothing else gets updated by the end of the week, I would consider dropping it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any reason we shouldn't post the top 3-5 ongoing armed conflicts and it seems reasonable to say this is in the list. Therefore the only consideration is whether the article is receiving updates. Since it still seems to be, it's reasonable to include it. I also think the relative recency of this is an added factor since it means the mass movement of people and the problem of of housing or protecting them is for lack of a better word, more active or topical. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is still receiving updates. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There has been no major news updates on this for at least a week. Yes, the article has been getting updates but not on any current events, which is the requirement for ongoing. --M asem (t) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, especially in re mass grave discoveryThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as new edits/updates seem to be rolling in ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The article's been only just barely receiving enough updates to stay in ongoing, with the bulk of recent updates being to references/citations. As a result, I can't support removal in good faith, but I think it's certainly worth revisiting in the near-future. The Kip (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruno Flierl

 * Support Article appear sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  03:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(ATTENTION NEEDED) (Ready) RD: Jerry Bradley (music executive)

 * Support Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nancy Pyle

 * Support Article feels a tad short, but well-cited and probably just long enough for RD. The Kip (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and just long enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The intro now has three sentences. Good enough, I hope? -- PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least no longer a solo sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Posted now. --PFHLai (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sue Marx

 * Oppose Article's a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With merely 239 words of prose, this stubby wikibio needs to be expanded before it can go on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: João Donato

 * Oppose Discography is entirely uncited. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valentin Gheorghiu

 * Oppose Article is at near-stub level, only has two sources so ref work is needed and the article body sounds almost like a resume/obituary. Weak oppose Fantastic work on fixing up the article! The recordings section has one cn tag and I'm not sure if the list of recordings listed needs sourcing. Support Issues resolved. Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs a lot of work, everything in the multiple issues template needs to be addressed. Support Article isn’t perfect but is good enough for RD. Has my full support now. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality As a classical musician myself, it is sad to see another composer and pianist die, but the article has this strange section about critics which promotes him too much, on top of the other issues mentioned ❤History Theorist❤  05:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a premature nomination. I will not have time to look until tomorrow (haven't finished yesterday's RD article, and not begun today's, and doing no more than one per day). I requested a native Romanian speaker, and we'll see what happens. All help is welcome, but no additional oppose needed until a signal comes here that it's updated. - I wonder if a nomination without update makes any sense, but well, if the result would be update, then yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I added, please look again. The article we had was simply copyvio, and in that state I don't think a nomination should be made. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping Please look again, user:HistoryTheorist, User:MonarchOfTerror, User:Iamstillqw3rty and User:TDKR Chicago 101. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdraw opposition, change to support it looks much better now ❤History Theorist❤  20:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Crimean Bridge explosions

 * Wait, leaning oppose due to ongoing. No cause yet is known so we can't attribute it to Ukraine. And the small number of deaths makes this a minor point in the war, barring anything unusual in followup. M asem (t) 13:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of ITN to post ongoing events on the Main Page?
 * Also, how is this event minor? The Crimean Bridge is a critical supply line. Last time the bridge exploded (attacked), it resulted in 5 deaths. This resulted in 2. But somehow the older explosion is not minor, but this is, because there were only 2 deaths instead of 5. It's still an explosion, which just so happened to be on a key supply line used by Russia, 9 months after another attack.
 * Yes, most of the sourcing comes from Russian officials talking about the explosion for now. We'll also have to wait before we can be sure what caused it. But of course Russian officials are claiming it's a Ukrainian drone attack. I wouldn't be surprised if it was. After all, it would be a smart way to stall Russian military supplies (at least some of them), and then lure officials to the attack site, and (optionally) launch another one, damaging the bridge further and killing Russian officials as well. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Was a notable event last time around, not so much the 2nd time. Major infrastructure in a war zone will get bombed. This is covered by ongoing.
 * Good faith nom, but I don't really think this meets the requirements. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. We don't post all the times that Russia fires cruise missiles into Ukrainian residential areas. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good faith nom, but I don't really think this meets the requirements. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. We don't post all the times that Russia fires cruise missiles into Ukrainian residential areas. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mangala Narlikar

 * Support, Article if fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is fine <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited, especially for a start-class article. SunsetShotguns (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 15:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's quality and sourcing looks good. Marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per Above Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Per all above. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Quadflieg

 * Support I’ve done some general cleanup on the article and it appears sufficient now (AGF on german sources of course). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have good eyes for my sloppiness ;) - I just wonder if we shouldn't keep stage actor first just for chronology - during his first years he wasn't on television - and for his preference - late in life, same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point! I’ve swapped so that stage is before television now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being a serial pinger (just trying to contribute) but this is about to roll over in 6 hours and I want to be sure that an admin looks at it and considers it. Also worth checking the other unposted noms today (mainly Harry Frankfurt as it seems good enough now) Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you but no pushing needed - his death wasn't known until 19 July, so in case of neglect today we could move him up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This seems good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Angelo Mozilo

 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The is tagged as potential issue per WP:CSECTION.  There's also a related talk section at .—Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the lack of mentions in obits, I removed that section per WP:10YT. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Mitnick

 * Support I’ve fixed the remaining sourcing issues and article looks good to go now. Marking as ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  02:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Support. Famous (or infamous, depending on your POV) hacker in the 90s for hacking numerous companies and obtaining source code for various products. Urbanracer34 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Any comments regarding article quality and readiness for use on MainPage, please? How famous the subject is is not really relevant for RD selection. --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is ready to be posted as is.  Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've fixed some of the sourcing issues the article previously had. Do you think the article's subject is up to par now? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fakescientist8000, for fixing thing in this wikibio. I ran a few random spotchecks and fixed a few items, too. Things seem okay there. However, considering that the subject is famous for hacking, we probably should be more careful with the text on this. The ref for the paragraph "According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mitnick gained unauthorized access...", with a footnote at the end of the paragraph, does not really discuss what the DoJ accused him of doing; instead, it was about his advice on the use of passwords. We need better sourcing for that paragraph, methinks. Also, I am not sure if news.italy24.press is WP:RS, so we may need replacement refs for his parents' names, etc. (Recent additions.) --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai I’ve added new sources to the mentioned paragraph and replaced italy24 with the newer NYT obituary. Can you take a look at the article again? Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  02:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MonarchOfTerror. Your replacement refs look good. --PFHLai (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose There's one cn tag and one failed verification tag. Once they're fixed, this nom has my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support once article is cleaned up. Influential and well-known person, more so in tech/hacker culture. RIP Kevin. Despite it being a 90s movie, Track Down is worth a watch, even though it's inaccurate and dramatized. Also, the documentary Freedom Downtime is worth checking out as well. -- Kcmastrpc (talk)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ricky Rivero

 * Oppose Article basically a stub with very little about his career seen. Expansion on career section would do the article some good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Needs a little expansion. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose 228 words is far too stubby and short for ITNRD standards. Expansion is needed for this to meet the bar for posting. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still at 228 words, and time/eligibility is running out soon. --PFHLai (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Frankfurt

 * Weak oppose No info on death in the article body. A sentence at least about his death would be good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made a personal life section which includes his death. Thriley (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Looking at the article again, there's come CN tags in the career section that need to be address.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs sourcing improvements, more specifically the 4 cn tags in the career section need to be resolved. Support Article looks good now. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose 4 CN tags in the career section need to be addressed. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has a lot of details & is fully referenced now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks ready now. Thriley (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleg Khorzhan

 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable person, article looks good. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editor 5426387 Please do not use notability as a reason to !support or !oppose Recent death nominations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fine, not great but not bad either. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Birth date is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks sufficient. (Assuming good faith on Russian sources.) Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) Wimbledon 2023

 * Oppose DJOKOVIC IS THE GOAT!!! ALCARAZ COULD NEVER WIN FROM HIM!!!!
 * Just kidding, still opposing for now though due to page quality concerns. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A very surprising result indeed haha PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural support although I fundamentally think sports shouldn’t be treated as ITN/R (and maybe should have their own section akin to RD), as long as current policy holds it meets minimum requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Re-iterating the opposes above. All 3 pages need a substantial amount of prose to augment the tables, including recaps of the final matches in both sides. M asem  (t) 01:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the usual sports article problem, needs some good old prose. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Why do tennis pages consistently misuse the main hatnote at the tops of pages?—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quality is very poor. I'm not sure why we are bold linking the tournaments, and not just the overarching article 2023 Wimbledon Championships? If that one had a bit of work and an event summary it might be ok. It's a bit crazy to only suggest that the men's and women's events are the only important parts.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically, it's been the men's and women's singles that get blurbed. Are they not the most notable events? The bolding of the singles, presumably, was because it's been the pages more likely to meet quality requirements. —Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically is kinda irrelevant. The championships as a whole are in the news. Whilst the main events, as it were are the most important, they are hardly independently notable from the championships article.
 * I suppose regardless, all three articles are of poor quality.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically is kinda irrelevant: Not when the current proposed blurbs still only highlight the men's and women's singles, as before.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once improved. Players' articles look good. More prose is needed for the tournament pages. e.b. (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ranking The main interest for our readers seems to be the generational change in the mens event. Their ranking is:
 * 1. Carlos Alcaraz
 * 2. Novak Djokovic
 * 4. Wimbledon Championships
 * 7. List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions
 * 10. Rafael Nadal
 * 11. Roger Federer
 * 17. List of Grand Slam men's singles champions
 * 20. Markéta Vondroušová
 * 24. Andy Murray
 * 30. Juan Carlos Ferrero
 * 32. Goran Ivanišević
 * 34. 2023 Wimbledon Championships
 * 43. 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles
 * 46. Ons Jabeur
 * 47. Annabel Croft
 * 50. Grand Slam (tennis)
 * So, the 2023 articles don't seem to be getting much attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why we don't care about reader pageviews here. We're not trying to optimize SEO or the like here. M asem (t) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Articles still have quality issues that need to be addressed. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R, though article needs work. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R, and to address Lee Vilenskis concern... how about a blurb without the two table farms of the men's and women's championships like: In tennis, Markéta Vondroušová (pictured left) wins the women's singles and Carlos Alcaraz (pictured right) wins the men's singles at the Wimbledon Championships.

Marketa is already a GA and Carlos Alcaraz is achievable rather soon in my opinion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ?? I mean Marketa would likely pass a quality check by and if there are any concerns on Carlos Alcaraz or the Wimbledon Championships we can address them. On the table farm articles on the men's and women's singles... I don't believe we will find anyone who'd be willing to expand them, this includes their nominator.  Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Definitely ITN/R and the articles for Marketa and Carlos are ready (save for a single cn-tagged paragraph in Carlos' article) but the Wimbledon target articles still need some prose work, although personally I would approve this because I honestly think the target articles could not be expanded further. Would not be surprised to see this go stale (or go to the archives) as the most recent Wimbledon edition to be posted to ITN was in 2015 (8 years ago; also note that the succeeding year's edition was pulled from ITN). Vida0007 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready I've placed a citation needed tag in the 2023 Wimbledon Championships article. With regards to the 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles article, there are sections "Seeds" (no prose; unreferenced) and "Seeded players" (some prose; unreferenced) that appear to duplicate information. This does not look ready to me.  Schwede 66  19:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Nahel Merzouk unrest

 * Oppose — The protests aren't even on the front page of Le Monde or France24. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing documented past July 10 on our article, and as I understand it, the protests no longer have the scale that the original posting merited. M asem (t) 18:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luigi Bettazzi

 * Support - good enough to meet requirements in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see anything to throw up red flags. And being one of the few (the last of the 42, actually) Pact of the Catacombs signees and was also at the Second Vatican Council, which has set up the modern Church now (Whether or not its totally worked, up to you) for over sixty years. Arguably, the impact of the Catacombs is seen through the current Pope. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Two CN tags that I couldn't find sources for. Rest of the article appears fine. Curbon7 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but the remaining CN tag should be fixed. What a beautiful career he had! _-_Alsor (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve resolved the last 2 cn tags, so the article should be of satisfactory quality now. Marking as ready. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2023 heatwaves

 * 52.2°C in northwest China (125.96°F/126.0). Absolutely destroying the world record for 40.000000+° from the Equator (and China's record) by 1.5C (2.7F). If it was c. 2.137551° norther it would've destroyed Earth's record for closer to pole than equator by 2.6C/4.7F (Canada 2021). Turpan City population hundreds of thousands new record over 49C/120F @ c. 42.93°N. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for 52.2°C in China? I saw a few mentions on Twitter but I can't find any articles and the Chinese weather websites have 48.7°C as the maximum. I'm trying to find a RS. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yale Climate Connections (the university not the door lock) should have an article on the extreme weather in hours, days at worst. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Washington Post had it for a few hours by now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-logs-522-celsius-extreme-weather-rewrites-records-2023-07-17/ Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article would be good to cover the record temperatures ITNC from earlier this week as well. However, the article is far from being ready for posting. There absolutely needs to be a section on the metrological reasons for the heat wave and the connection to global warming issues that have been seen, and not just reporting of high temperatures in a proseline approach. --M asem (t) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality Article still needs work depth wise and also generally improved writing. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Historic event. --Travisthecrab (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just "heatwaves" in general is just way too broad for an ITN item. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality so far per above. The article should have a broader overview, with more major temperature records. While posting the overarching global warming is debatable, I think the ongoing general consequences should appear one way or the other in ITN. Brandmeistertalk  17:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article need some improved writing, the heatwave does not seem significant enough for ITN, and the article seems too broad. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once ready As stated the article is a WIP, but in principle the matter is absolutely one that should be represented. It feels like every week new heat records are broken somewhere in the world, it's a subject that is absolutely dominating regional and international news cycles. Seems to fit ITN's purpose well enough. BSMRD (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The European Space Agency (ESA) said the next week could bring the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be amazing, the last European record break was less than 2 years ago (11 Aug 2021 48.8C Sicily). And I was wrong Italy won't be hottest today but days later. Death Valley and NW China are hot today, possibly not a record for Death Valley though (the forecast was 131 a few days ago!) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance I'll let those with more experienced minimum quality radar than me judge when that's reached. This seems to be an unusual time, something should be put up for it. Also Sardinia forecast for 117! Possible break of their record of 118.4. Googling "Rome weather" shows a few F above their record & Google's often low. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ...good idea. Seems to be no letup soon. Jusdafax (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Annual summer traditions, sponsored by climate change. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has to be the most serious wave of heat waves. I don't think we had faced these heatwaves this strong before. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fossil fumes very insulating now: 120F @ 1am California time=00:06:XX sundial time from only 127-129F daytime. 120's nearly 5°F above the previous midnight record for Earth! Japan only about 2.5F under its high temp record and Vegas 1F under. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Notable news. Alex-h (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs some major expansion; it is very light on useful information right now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Welcome back Knight! Hope exams went well. I've actually had some myself recently
 * Anyways, there's a live page on the BBC covering it. Wildfires have broken out in Greece causing evacuations, World Meteorological Organisation believes the heatwave will continue until August. Making lots of coverage In The News, so I think it meets the bar for ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Canadian smoke's gonna last till fall or winter too, the news just doesn't care about the low pop density area the worst is confined to when winds are usual. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not low enough, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is so sad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, the smoke is once again affecting the more popular areas. Not bright for the people who live there, of course, gloomy as ever. But if it helps just one careless smoker or camper or pyromaniac wake up and avert turning dry windy conditions into disaster anywhere on Earth, it's a plus. Also, a smoking fire is easier for firefighters to approach than a blazing one. Anyway, Oppose. This article is going nowhere fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First 45.3C in Catalonia! (1.6C record break). True, article still poor. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Rome broke its record by 2.1C! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the sheer number of vandals pouring through the gates has skyrocketed by 50%! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, Oppose on quality per above. Obviously notable enough for ongoing at this point, but article is in weak shape. The Kip (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support if the article can be maintained and brought up to par. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article largely 1-2 sentence updates within larger sections.  Spencer T• C 07:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not good enough quality. Also, this is not the Olympic games and records are not that significant. Tradedia talk 12:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Greece having big fire problems, 30,000 Rhodesites evacuated, 85 people in Arizona suffered severe burns from contact with pavements heated up to 180F/82C. 7 of them died, highest temp in Cayman history yesterday, Sardinia 117.9 on Wednesday and the Med and far East will try for records again next week. Phoenix did some amazing things with 24-hour lows. But article hasn't improved enough so moot no matter what. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given this global issue is being attributed to four simultaneous heat domes needs to be a focus of the article, in addition to climate change in general. The article is terribly focused on localized records and not the larger scale issue. --M asem  (t) 22:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed someone needs to add a lot more on societal impacts/meteorological and climatological background. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Consolidate into "Global temperature records broken" (July 11). — RCraig09 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jane Birkin

 * Oppose Article is nearly there but filmography and discography need citations. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Talented actress, article looks in good shape, esp once remaining refs filled in. Am adding some references. --2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:AC64:A20D:AAB6:7877 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb Per Macron and others, she was an icon that transcended generations. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, just no. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't handwave assertions of such importance - they need to be in the article first and foremost before we can consider blurbs based on that. M asem (t) 17:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I cited a good source which seems both reliable and respectable. The opposition just seems to be based on their personal opinion, which is otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There needs to be significant coverage of this in our article. Otherwise, while you can point to a source, its handwaving to claim she is significant. M asem (t) 20:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No blurb Iconic in some ways yes, but her actual body of work is quite slim and certainly not transformative in any way. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No blurb per Black Kite. Modest body of work and inspiring a handbag is not "transformative" or in any way meeting what should be stringent criteria for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No blurb and commented it out from the template, even. Maybe premature, but even among those who support the posting of actors and entertainers as blurbs, you will not find a consensus for this. Getting an OBE isn't enough. In addition, it's an unfortunate distraction from what should be a straightforward RD nom since we get cluttered with the usual !votes of "never heard of them" and "not famous enough" which, even as I engage in the practice, at times I feel can be somewhat callous. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Muboshgu. Labeling her as a fashion icon might be a bit overstated, as her influence primarily revolves around a single handbag (which bears her name and has since evolved into a status symbol, to be fair) rather than a more extensive and consistent impact on the industry. Mooonswimmer 19:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Discography needs some more refs per MonarchOfTerror, otherwise support RD. - Indefensible (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Another instance of an off the cuff addition not intended by the nominator. Sidney Poitier is the last veritable posting which was posted without much debate. That is the standard we have here as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update - Article now fully sourced.2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:AC64:A20D:AAB6:7877 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked RD ready, blurb discussion still under way. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting RD, as the discussion stands now, there is a consensus against the blurb. --Tone 22:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb An icon, but no. Again agree with WaltCip that some sense needs to be used before suggesting RD blurbs to avoid unnecessary putdowns. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Zagel

 * Weak support Article is well-cited, but does not really mention of any other significant trials he was part of besides Blago (there was a short paragraph on mob trial, but it was cited to a blog and an offline newspaper, so I've hidden that). That said, I think it is just barely fine, mainly because the rest of the article is of such quality that it brings it up overall. Curbon7 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * July 15 will roll over in about 5 hours, I think the article is fine for posting, paging admins to take a look. Oh and also consider looking at the other unposted noms on this day: Everett Mendelsohn, Billy Macmillan and Derek Malcolm all worth considering as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It looks like this is good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Everett Mendelsohn

 * Oppose Article is a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Tagged as a stub a stub; in this case, the article is clearly a start. That said, there needs to be content on his early life and, more importantly for an academic, his educational background. Curbon7 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sufficiently sourced but needs work in terms of length and depth. Weak support still a bit short but barely enough for me to support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have made an early life and education section and expanded the personal life section. Looks ready to me. Thriley (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like this has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Royal Albion Hotel

 * Oppose A few uncited statements in the Historical sketches and hotel guests section need to be addressed. Also, I'm not sure whether mere fires are worthy for blurbs. I'm aware of the South African mill fire we posted, but that was years ago. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A tragedy for history and architecture, but it's not even the first time the hotel's burned down. Extensive citation work is also needed. The Kip (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derek Malcolm

 * Oppose 318 words is too stubby for ITNRD standards. (In my opinion, if the infobox is larger than the article text on Vector 2010, then it's not ready for posting.) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not hard and fast when it comes to word count (I think the shortest article I created that got posted to RD was a little above 300 words). I think the article is just barely sufficient in terms of holisticity now that it got another couple of sentences (up to 360 words), and it is well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support Sufficient in terms of sourcing, but only barely sufficient in terms of length and depth. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy MacMillan

 * Weak oppose Some citations need to be added here and there, but this article could probably get by without them. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Career statistics and coaching records uncited. Support Article appears sufficient now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Career statistics and coaching records are now sourced. I could not find a source for his international stats while on the national team, so that table is now hidden. -- PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marie-Laure de Decker

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 South Korean floods

 * Was looking for this article yesterday. Related subject Geography of South Korea has room for improvement, there is a discussion on splitting the article on its talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - notable, unusually high amount of deaths. — Knightof  theswords  18:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment, expanded the article a bit and added an alt blurb since some of the deaths were not in the named province nor due to the overflowing dam. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 05:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 40 deaths is a lot for a place where everyone carries phones with alerts that are unblockable by the time the risk of not fleeing gets that bad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Not the longest article but what's there is decent.  Schwede 66  22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added some CC 3.0 photographs to the article which may be used for the listing. : 3 F4U (they/it) 07:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Ibáñez Talavera

 * Support Article looks good. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I am improving his article, as he had a long professional trajectory that I believe is not yet reflected. I would prefer to let you know once it is fully ready so that it can be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is mostly ready; however, I identified an uncited passage, and the "Works" section could use more references. The Kip (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support task finished. The article seems to be ready to be posted. Can you take a look at it, please? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The Kip (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fully-cited and well-written. The Kip (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 European heat waves

 * Strong Oppose, as it is hot EVERYWHERE in the world, and we should be looking to post the record temp ITNC below. M asem (t) 22:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for the likely more severe coming months (and related events) or acknowledge this latest continental summer as Ongoing now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At least wait till tomorrow. Rome could break its record by 2°C and Earth could break its record by ≥1°F. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lytton broke the Canadian record three consecutive times before bursting into flames just shy of 50, so world famous or not, Rome's going to need something tangible to impress me (not just confirm a number). As far as Earth is concerned, it's already tomorrow in Sydney and Durban, where it's 15 degrees. Maybe that's warm for winter, but not hot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Death Valley part of Earth isn't even Sunday yet. Californian time zone. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, true to form, has already seen more bloodshed. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Observation This article has the same problem as those gone by, wherein everything to do with heat (whether Germany's "warmer than usual" or Ireland's "mini heat wave") are treated as legitimate heatwaves (which don't spread or cause high temperatures). There are eight instances of "expected". About half apply to dates which have already passed. Not cool then, not cool now. In my opinion, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently, the whole world is experiencing a heat wave, and records for a certain place gets changed all the time, so this does not seem ITN-worthy, when it is record-breaking in the entire world, then it might be ITN-worthy.Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing There was a big Asian heatwave earlier and there's more to come. We should put something general into Ongoing to help get readers started on these many weather stories.  For example, 2023 heat waves or Weather of 2023. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 on this Schwinnspeed (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning ongoing, as more importantly, heat waves in this year seems to be occurring at a higher frequency than the last time. Let's just say, 2023 heat waves should be considered here. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. This article suffers from the same issue most heatwave articles do. It's a jumble of different statements under each country's section without much cohesiveness. Also, I oppose this as the target article anyway if we are to post this item, as the correct target should be the ongoing heatwave, Heatwave Cerberus, though this article suffers from the same issues. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not good enough quality. Tradedia talk 13:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Consolidate into "Global temperature records broken" (July 11). — RCraig09 (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Chandrayaan-3

 * Wait We should wait until it has either landed or crashed. 2607:9880:2D28:108:B818:9A26:1F7B:43A (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article(s) appear to be in good shape, waiting until the craft does "xyz" is irrelevant to the existing coverage in the news -- something is going to happen to it, regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * waiting until the craft does "xyz" is irrelevant to the existing coverage in the news Yes, except that portion of the event is WP:ITN/R, specifically under the "Space Exploration" category: Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Per @Kcmastrpc. Best of luck to ISRO! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until 23 August per User:WaltCip 5.151.106.5 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Respectfully, I don't see the significance here. This is already the third mission in this program alone, and at this point launching a craft to explore the moon is hardly new. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DarkSide, after the 1st launch, the subsequent ones are generally not as notable. --M asem (t) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning toward Support - We should wait until this mission either succeeds or fails, either way, it would make for a great ITN title due to widespread media coverage. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This mission is going to have a result no matter what. Whether it succeeds or fails, only time can tell. It's better to post the full results instead, whether if its successful or crashes or something. TwistedAxe   [contact]  18:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Point of order - If and when the spacecraft lands, it will be considered to have fulfilled the ITN/R criteria for arriving at lunar orbit and beyond. If this is simply not notable despite fulfilling this, we ought to have a conversation about amending this criteria yet again; or if we had come to a consensus, amending the page so that it reflects reality. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is more that being an ITNR is not a 100% assurance of being posted (outside of quality or timing issues). There are reasonable exceptions when an ITNR is made, which in this case "this is the third time India has reached the moon, its not as unique as the first" would be a valid point. M asem (t) 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can already hear the opposition to Artemis 3. After all, the US landed people on the moon six times before that, and we've got this discussion lined up as precedent. —Cryptic 04:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tbf, Artemis III will be one of the most momentous events in human history, so it's a little bit different. But yeah, I agree. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's fine, but if it starts to become a regular occurrence (i.e. if as says, it's used to challenge the Artemis 3 landing) then we need to reconsider its existence as an WP:ITNR criteria or at least amend it to specify "This generally does not apply to missions repeating similar past flights made as part of a larger programme". Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem - (in all fairness, I am just seeking to understand): What about the part in ITN/R that states Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur . Seems completely counterintuitive to me to not post because its 'happened before'. Also FWIW as I stated below, this would be India's first successful soft-landing on the moon - not the third. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between assuming that the general ITNR topic meets the significance level so that we don't keep debating why that ITNR topic exists (this was common when we still had the Boat Race on there, the ITNC would question why do we even have that ITNR), and finding that one specific instance of an ITNR is significant, which is the case here. No one is questioning the launch or the arrival of space missions as an ITNR, just this particularly event. M asem (t) 12:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Renominate after landing (i.e., wait) The criteria at ITN/R (as Walt has stated) is to post upon on 'arrival' This criteria reflects several discussions that posed similar concerns about the significance of repeated space missions (ie previous consensus took this into account) Also, for what it's worth, if it lands, it will be the first successful soft-landing of a spacecraft on the lunar surface for India, only the 4th country to do so. Notable in my book. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait If it makes India’s 1st successful landing, it’ll be notable enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning support when it lands in late August this year. Arguments of DarkSide and Masem are equivalent to saying that Apollo 11 wasn't relevant enough after earlier Apollo missions. I don't think a success is the criteria here and this should be displayed irrespective of the mission outcome. >>> Extorc . talk  18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If there was some significant new aspect of this 3rd mission - in comparison to Apollo 11 actually landing on the moon for the first time - then that would be reason to post this one. But as I understand the mission, the goals of this lander is not really as novel as previous missions. M asem (t) 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It has the same goal as the 2nd mission, but the outcome could be different. The 2nd mission didn’t land successfully. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Small launches like this happen weekly or at least monthly, if we start posting them all this whole page would be nothing but spess launches Daikido (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, lean Support only if it successfully lands. India successfully deploying a lander/rover on the moon is notable, a hypothetical failure like the second mission is not. The Kip (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's an interesting mission profile with a launch into earth orbit and then a process of raising the orbit until the leap to the moon. As this is happening now and is in the news now, we should post it now.  The article could use some work but is already quite informative.  The item which would be displaced by this is the Bolsonaro ban which is not so informative and is not in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in reasonable shape, and a blurb highlights a mission to an area of the moon, the Lunar south pole, that is currently the focus of attention in coming years. Notable, and a significant source of pride for emerging space power India. Posting this now is a plus for the 'pedia: inclusive, of international interest, and timely. Opposes and "wait" !votes are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until it successfully lands, then it's definitely in the news. Thought to nominate myself or at least get involved if it lands.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. I would support if it successfully deploys on the moon. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a notable event that's currently in the news. The article meets basic quality standards (though a few more citations wouldn't hurt). We can update the blurb if something else worth noting occurs. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marilies Flemming
Not yet ready Not sufficiently holistic: big gap in content between her birth in 1933 and 1999, de.wiki article could be used as a baseline. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Added a few items. - Indefensible (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Marilies Flemming's profile at the Munzinger-Archiv may be useful, if anyone is interested in expanding this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I feel that the article could still be expanded. There's no info about her after 2004 besides her death whereas it appears she was active in the EU well into 2009 and 2015. Some more information about her personal life such as her education could be useful as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added her education & some post-2004 details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support There are enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New York City Council veto override

 * Oppose NYC’s a major city, but its internal political affairs are not ITN-worthy. Virtually no impact outside the city itself. The Kip (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The top ITN right now is: "In the Netherlands, the governing coalition collapses and Prime Minister Mark Rutte (pictured) resigns." Is that not internal political affairs of a country that has virtually no impact outside of the country itself? See also WP:ITNCDONT #2 and the first bullet in ITN arguments to avoid. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC), updated 23:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands is a country, NYC is a city. Different levels. - Indefensible (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * NYC is larger than many countries and its politics are routinely the subject of global attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just how it works. ITN would turn into a political ticker if every major city had its news posted. This blurb is also a 1-sentence update in the article which does not meet the requirements either. - Indefensible (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that significant. This is more local news and not ITN worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted, closed) 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike

 * Addendum - Though this was previously nominated, at the time it was limited to just the Writers Guild. Despite the article title, we are now talking about a very, very broad strike. An article move is anticipated to 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes pending the outcome of this discussion. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the framing that its just a bunch of rich people striking. Most writers make a pittance. Most actors do too, they don't all make the salaries that a Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence earn, and have to keep working to pay their bills. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hoping it was clear I was being facetious. This has vast impacts beyond just the big name people. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it's often easy to miss intonation in text, I just want to make sure we all know that those lesser known actors need their health care too. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — If this were a trilateral strike against the AMPTP with directors joining, I would support an ongoing entry, but the DGA has already signed a tentative agreement. The blurb is also incorrect; actors have joined writers in the strike, but have not had a strike of their own until this morning. If you want to link an article, use 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, I've amended the article in the template. I wanted to get the nomination up rather quickly and then fix it later, so it was a bit sloppy to start with. I'm welcome to alt-blurbs or amendments to the main blurb. But note that even with the directors not involved, we are still talking about something that has broad residual impacts on the industry. Other auxiliary employee classes will not be able to work under this environment. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose this has already been nominated as the Writer's Guild strike, and this seems to have little impact outside the U.S. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Please do not ... Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." - WP:ITNCDONT voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Two separate strikes... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you've never ever watched an American show or movie in your life, I really don't understand how you think this will have no impact outside the US. 223.233.87.68 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first time the two unions have struck together for 60 years. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. These two strikes have had an impact on the entertainment industry which in turn does affect businesses and other affairs globally. Also per voorts, first time in 60 years is a significant/not common event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - anyone who likes Hollywood movies is going to be affected by this. I agree that now is the time to post a blurb about it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Increasingly large impact on the entertainment industry, and the first time both the WGA and SAG have gone on strike concurrently in over 60 years. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Big impact on the entertainment industry and rare event making global headlines. --2601:249:8E00:420:ACB3:7483:9BF:B6A3 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd say this is a real tipping point in the larger conflict going on here. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Honestly, the combination of this strike and the writer's strike will look to have significant impacts on the entertainment industry in the U.S Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major shift--basically shutting down Hollywood, absolutely of global significance. : 3 F4U (they/it) 00:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Hugely newsworthy, article seems well written given the fluidity of the situation. --19h00s (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t believe we posted the writer’s strike when it started in May. What makes this different? GeicoHen (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * During a writer's strike, one scrub writer can still write a show, while so many actors are that much harder to hire. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the articles needs to be about the combined strike, and right positioned only as the SAG one. This is absolutely burying the lede. M asem (t) 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Only if the directors do join the strike would this be blurbworthy as that trifecta has never happened before TMK. That would have international impact given that, whatever one thinks about, US-made content accounts for a lot of the world's TV and movie viewing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even w/o the directors, these strikes will have a major impact on Hollywood. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose meh. Per Daniel Case. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. There have been numerous strikes throughout the world in this past year. Why is this one being given pride of place. Doesn't meet the threshold for ITN significance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the one happening now. It was nominated, it won, it's world famous. The other recent newsworthy ones are all the artillery, missile and tornado type. If another world famous strike pops up, nominate it. It, too, might pass. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Who decides what strikes are famous? Better to focus on impact then fame. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 160,000 actors, 20,000 writers, and all of the staff that work in those scripted industries not working for an indefinite period of time. I'd say that's impact. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * exactly, i agree with you. cheers?
 * I just thought the "but it's [more] famous" is a weak argument for WP:N. A more obscure, not famous, but covered by RS and impactful strike should imho make the news too. Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, fame is not the best kind of argument to use and should certainly not be used as a substitution for impact and consequences when measuring a story's (or a death's) notability. I know we've turned down strikes before that are equally as notable but perhaps didn't have the romanticism accompanying this particular one. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In my head, "world famous" is pretty much synonymous with what a lot of regulars call "globally covered"; if it weren't for Hollywood's place in the allegorical world as an established symbol of fame, I'd have gone with the regular. Anyway, it's not an argument because I'm not voting, just saying. I'll also just say, perhaps leaning Oppose, that the "impacted" fans aren't nearly as out of luck during this dispute, since these are the recorded arts and nobody's watched everything filmed, taped or digitized over these past hundred years. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Blaylockjam10. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per WaltClipper Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - Per @Daniel Case PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support of international importance and widely covered. Secretlondon (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull & Post-posting oppose - I'm not seeing this in my diverse newsfeed. It's impact doesn't seem to be significant enough. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not seeing this in my news feed" is effectively a permutation of WP:IDL. ITN doesn't cater to what one does/doesn't see; otherwise, half the non-western world news stories we post wouldn't get blurbed. The Kip (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we don't vote "pull" or "post" here unless we're an admin. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting question - would we post about a similar situation in a larger country with a bigger film industry? Bollywood has about double the output of Hollywood. Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we would. Also note that Hollywood still has a bigger impact than Bollywood though the latte r is still quite a big film industry also with international impact. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as somebody nominates it, yes. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Bollywood may have a higher output, but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think Hollywood has a far greater global influence at the moment.
 * 2. We would certainly consider it if it happened and was nominated. The Kip (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support due to the huge number of affected people/industries (the impact is larger than I think many people realize). I also don't foresee this being resolved any time soon, so count this as an early support for ongoing assuming it is still ongoing once it naturally rolls off. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I second the support for ongoing once this rolls off too. There’s lots of information that can update this event once it rolls off, until it’s eventual conclusion. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another Post-posting question. Part of the nomination basis is this is the biggest such strike since 1960. Where's the article for the 1960 strike? Hard to see how this is ITN-worthy, if the last double-header isn't notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because it doesn't exist yet, doesn't mean it's not notable, right? Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1960 Writers Guild of America strike. It's a stub, and I agree with Bart. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the WGA strike, not the 1960 actors strike. It certainly is odd that such an allegedly significant event doesn't have an article, given the thousands we have for anyone who walked onto the grass on a 100+ British soccer pitches in 1960. Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The latter are routine articles, they already have a basic template and all get filled out. However, we don't have routine strikes. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose per Amakuru. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull & post-posting oppose I don't see how this is even close to being notable for ITN. I mean, sure, it is notable in some aspects, especially for people who really enjoy watching Netflix or such, but no way that this belongs in ITN. Amakuru pointed out a good point too. TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I personally don't particularly care about this strike, but it is in the News (it did also feature in the German news media I read), and there was consensus for posting - so let's just let this be. Pulling should just be done in egregious quality cases. Khuft (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Strike is very much in the news right now. It was already posted since a consensus existed at the time. It reflects badly on us to pull items unless there is a serious quality issue.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 10:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still all over the British news too. Secretlondon (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Oppose I can't help thinking this would have been better as an Ongoing item. After all, what is the impact now?  And posted in less than SIX HOURS - have we still not gathered that this is a really bad idea except for items that are ITN/R or otherwise obviously going to be posted?  Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How can this make more sense as Ongoing rather than as blurb? It used to be the norm that an event is first blurbed and then moves to Ongoing once it drops off, assuming it's still relevant by then. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose per Amakuru. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support I'm not pulling this. Above editors are citing Amakuru's reasoning for pulling, which is literally an OTHERSTUFF argument. This story is in the news and has a quality article. Let it stay. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this would be a horribly irresponsible pull. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not really an OTHERSTUFF argument. This argument is "we generally don't post strikes, what makes this one more important than all the others that have happened"?  To which there has yet appeared no answer, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The answer could be as simple as "from now on, post more strikes of major industries". Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As the supports repeatedly make a point of saying, it’s important due to the wide-ranging effects on the entertainment industry and the fact it’s the first strike of its kind in sixty years. Virtually anyone that watches TV or movies will in some way be affected here. The rationale is that it’s simply important; arguing that it needs to be proven more important is, as stated above, textbook OTHERSTUFF. The Kip (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those "other strikes" are "other stuff" we didn't post, and "we shouldn't post this" as a result is an OTHERSTUFF argument, never mind the fact that every nomination here should be considered on its own merits and cannot be compared to an event that wasn't nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing Amakuru's - and my - point. I can't see that we've ever posted strikes before, so why is this one - affecting relatively few people (yes, 180K is relatively few in this context) and which has only just started so its impact is unquantifiable - different?  Other than "but famous people"? Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think it's limited to 180,000 people. Yes, the writers and actors themselves are striking, but it also affects the livelihood of those other personnel who contribute to those sectors in the entertainment industry, as they are now without work and many of them have no recourse. Although it might be WP:CRYSTAL to assume how long this will last, it's also not appropriate to post as an ongoing item, as you have suggested. A labor dispute has two milestones: the beginning of the strike, and the final negotiation of a contract. There are no intermediate steps that would merit this be ongoing. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is the first strike ITN has posted, I'd actually be asking why we hadn't posted any before. A potential UPS strike may cost the U.S. $7 billion in a ten day period. I'd at least consider supporting that, if the strike happens and is nominated here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support These strikes will have a major impact on Hollywood, which will affect anyone who watches shows or films made by Hollywood. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did not support this originally but at this point think it should just be left up. This will also create precedent for other such events which might diversify coverage in the future. - Indefensible (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This should probably stay up mostly due to the fact that Hollywood has global influence and this strike is already affecting ton of productions thus impacting more than hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide rather than just the writers, actors, and companies involved. This put it way above other strikes that we did not post or nominate. Also, I don't think Amakuru's argument should just be dismissed as WP:OTHERSTUFF since this is not an actual policy and only concerns deletion discussions iirc. --StellarHalo (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now now, don't forget about WP:ONLYESSAY. 😉 Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear (God, I hate my catchphrase), when I told Amakuru OTHERSTUFF, it was just in an edit summary. Those mean next to nothing. The main reason was italicized: this one is the one (famous or significant or impactful) that won now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 North India floods

 * Oppose on quality Article is definitely past stub status, and events are notable enough; however, there’s a lot of uncited statements in the article. The Kip (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you add some {cn} tags? - Indefensible (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems most of the article's been cleaned up, but most of the Punjab section is wholly uncited. The Kip (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some refs added. - Indefensible (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also gone in and addressed any missing refs, latest info etc. Should be ready for posting now. Thanks to both of you for the substantial clean-up too. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough (just) and it's certainly a notable event.  Schwede 66  04:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Schwede. -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The article says that at least 105 deaths have occurred yet does not give any indication where and how these casualties occurred. The "Delhi" section appears somewhat undersourced as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have cleaned up and provided context to any mention of the deaths. I dont see any unsourced sections under "Delhi" any longer. I believe this should be good to go now Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support With over 100 dead and substantial damage across a large swath of India, this is definitely notable and covered broadly in the news for the last week. We've posted similar weather events like Cyclone Cheneso which had a quarter of the death toll (not saying any less significant just citing a similar event as precedent to post) Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is important enough for a blurb & it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heide Simonis

 * Support It looks like it’s good to go. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Daniel Goldberg (producer)

 * Oppose Filmography needs citing. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography still largely unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: André Watts

 * Support, article is in good shape for RD, well referenced <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 23:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks in good shape. --2601:249:8E00:420:ACB3:7483:9BF:B6A3 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Once the date of birth is cited, it's good to go.  Schwede 66  04:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone just did. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  13:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ryuchell

 * Added English language BBC reference. Suicide is not confirmed, just suspected according to the article. Secretlondon (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not quite ready I had to place three citation needed tags.  Schwede  66  04:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Jochen Jaschke

 * Support Article looks good for me! _-_Alsor (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleg Tsokov

 * Support There are no blaring citation needed tags or anything that catches my eye, so I think the article looks fine ❤History Theorist❤  04:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not affect my support, but I think the article should be divided up into individual sections if there's enough material (it's kind of difficult to navigate) ❤History Theorist❤  04:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Birth date is uncited, I was unable to find a source for this. Curbon7 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found this article but have a suspicion it's an instance of citogenesis. DatGuyTalkContribs 20:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the DoB with iffy sourcing. He was either born in 1971 or 1972, as he was reported to be 51 years old when he died. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Indian Haven

 * Needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Five {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(blurb posted) RD/Blurb: Milan Kundera

 * Support. If anyone deserves a blurb it's Kundera. Fantastically referenced throughout save for the list of works. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb, surprisingly little about this in world news, but probably just about enough. Definitely support RD. Article is good enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is all over the news, also because of the obvious link to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'd add to the blurb "author of the The Unbearable Lightness of Being" - ELEKHHT 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Famous author, numerous awards, around 75 wiki pages. I also see he was in a fiction book as a character. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb - Once again, we have RD for a reason. Blurbs aren't meant to be awards for recently deceased famous people, unless their deaths have far-reaching impact on the world (Elizabeth II, for example). Also, it's not even front-page on most news sites. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not award. If we blurb any writer at all, this should be him. Kirill C1 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose both blurb and RD on quality Many here are looking at only the notability/significance requirements, but have yet to see that all of the book subsections (with the exception of Milan Kundera), much of the non wikipaged books and poems in the Bibliography, the first paragraph of the Writing style section, and the first three statements of the Biography section are uncited, which means this article needs some serious sourcing cleanup. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: there is one sourced statement in Milan Kundera. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Kundera is definitely a literary giant, having contributed to both the Czech and French literatures. There are very few writers who have received acclamation for writing in more than one language (another notable example is Nabokov).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Kiril. Since the death blurb criteria are somewhat nebulous, I'll judge based on my own subjective findings: Compare with Günter Grass whom we have also posted as a death blurb in the past. This man was a legendary writer and certainly falls into my previously declared category of "the writer has some credits or notoriety outside of their field, such as being a public figure in other areas as well." --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb doesn't have Nobel prize in literature, not enough of household name. No doubt a notable author etc but this isn't even close to Shinzo Abe level or even Tina Turner. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nobel Prize in Literature has relatively low regard and is definitely not the highest award in the field.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one is better known than the Nobel Prize in your opinion?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the most notable one among normal people (ie. most wikipedia users) who are not bibliophiles enough to know all the other awards. Looking at his awards, I don't even see a Booker prize (one of the few other book awards that I personally am aware of). Simply put, he is not fit for a blurb on English wikipedia. Certainly a RD is merited, and probably a blurb on French or Czech wikipedia would totally make sense - but he is not notable enough to be on the front page. A DYK would also be fitting i think QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do most readers judge writers off of just prizes? Perhaps it's the most notable prize, but winning an award doesn't make you a great writer, nor does not winning one make you not a great writer. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no standard that requires that an author win a Nobel Prize in order to be considered transformative. In fact, the idea that it's required seems a bit Eurocentric. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tolstoy and Chekhov don't need a Nobel Prize to be regularly named among the greatest writers of all time (even the opening sentence in their article mentions it). So, it's not about awards at all. I'm sure most people admire him because of his works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Not having a Nobel prize shouldn't disqualify him from having a blurb. John B. Goodenough, Nobel winner, died a month ago and he didn't get a blurb. Per Kiril, the man was an influential writer in two languages which already speaks about his influence. --38.106.246.207 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A Nobel isn't indicative of importance (James Joyce is a great example and John Ashberry is a more recent example). He's probably more famous than any of the recent deaths up there. Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly notable for RD but nowhere close enough for a blurb. I believe you were resopnding to me. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was; my bad. On Le Monde (see "Les plus lus"), for example, it's the 2nd most read article right now. I'd expect similar stats for most French and Czech news sites. He was definitely notable, but not necessarily in chiefly anglophonic areas, which could be why most are arguing that the news sites are showing he's non-notable by listing his death off the front page. Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While you'd probably argue that this is enwiki and not frwiki, about 15% and 23% of pageviews from France and Czechia, respectively, are on enwiki and both countries are fairly populous.1 Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support impressive author.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But article needs a lot of work. For now I oppose on quality but support in principle . Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the moment I support an RD. A blurb I won't oppose, but also not support, there are differing sources for his private life, and a lot of gossip is around in the sources. I'd remove the challenged rest before adding a citation needed tag again and AGF the rest.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb - not a household name. We didn't blurb more well-known authors who passed away, I don't see why this author should be blurbed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "not a household name". The ignorance is very bold. Looking at your track record on Candidates, I think you mean "not an American name", because, frankly, I can't understand it. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not ignorance. Just because he's a household name to you doesn't mean he's a household name to the rest of the world. In the immortal words of Leela from Futurama "The United States is part of the world." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Citing a line from an American cartoon sitcom to make your philosophical point. That'll certainly do the job. I agree with Alsor that it would do you well to educate yourself beyond just the apparently limited perspective you bring to ITN every day. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It'd do you well to read WP:NPA. All perspectives are valid here. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  16:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It'd do you well to read WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Noting that you are viewing this author with a limited point of view is not a personal attack. Our goal here is to direct readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. It behooves us to maintain an open perspective about these subjects when discussing significance. Yes, all perspectives are welcome here, but transformative figures ought to be viewed as an absolute whole rather than relative to other people, places or points of view. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUEWEIGHT also applies. People known in the Anglosphere are inherently more notable as they are more likely to be widely covered on the English Wikipedia.
 * I feel like many go so far to try and remove some arbitrary American or European-bias we have, but naturally there will be more significance placed, like how the Spanish Wikipedia will be more likely to put up stories related to the Hispanosphere on their ITN. Completely natural, not that we should strive to be biased. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. This reminds me of when I looked at the Indonesian Wikipedia during the height of COVID; they dedicated a huge portion of ITN to Indonesia specific statistics. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that when they knew most (nearly all?) of their viewers were coming from Indonesia. Of course, English Wikipedia is different in that English is a more global language. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, do remember that English is the lingua franca and that, combined with of course the diversity of demographics within the USA alone, is a huge driver for why English Wikipedia is unique in that it's not strictly representative of an Americentric/Anglosphere POV. They are certainly the dominant group on Wikipedia in terms of participation, but tyranny of the majority is something that ought to be avoided in general in a collaborative environment such as this. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's not like that. The major difference is that in English Wikipedia the imbalance is within the Anglo-Saxon sphere (titanic preference for U.S. related topics) while in Spanish Wikipedia, although it obviously predominates the issues that concern the Hispanic sphere over the Anglo-Saxon sphere as a matter of course, it does not highlight a dominance of one of the countries. You also forget the categorization of English as a universal language. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But whatever, it's more something political and patriotic (something almost inherent in Anglo-Saxon culture) than something strictly objective. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I strike and withdraw my comment. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you doing that. Thank you! --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't say it, but everyone says so, both experts and Kundera's millions of readers. But ok. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, the name of the novel I think is household, no objections about that?
 * Second, it is not criteria. We didn't blurb Harry Belfonte, William Hurt, Ray Liotta, Olivia de Havilland, Alan Arkin, Vangelis and more who were household names. It is about transfomativeness, which is the case here. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly important author. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Textbook case of a perfect candidate, but that lead is atrocious what is with the extreme focus on citizenship and classification of French/Czech right there in the opening para (a single descriptor should do). With that lead it is a no from me on quality concerns. Gotitbro (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on current quality, support blurb Absolutely a household name, and more so if you happen to be from anywhere in continental Europe. Big cleanup including lead and more citations needed though. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability, Quality fine for me The Tina Turner of world literature, especially with his masterpiece of the 1980s The Unbearable Lightness of Being. This year has witnessed quite a few deaths among famous authors, many of which I would have considered worthy of blurbing. Kundera is certainly among the most worthy of blurbing. If we blurb important figures of music (Turner) or sports (some of the baseball / basketball / football players we have blurbed in the past), I would hope we are as forthcoming with more serious (and maybe less popular) arts such as literature. Khuft (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on quality undisputed and unquestioned notoriety. But the article is far from having the necessary quality. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as nothing in the article gives any type of impact or legacy aspect to consider, and Oppose RD on poor sourcing quality. --M asem (t) 22:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to stress to those supporting a blurb "because he was important" that our article gives nothing to talk about this. Awards are important to include but alone do not tell us of wht he was considered important or influential. Do not just handwave the importance, please document the evidence in the article. M asem (t) 15:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD due to notesworthy career and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As of this post, the article quality is nowhere close to posting. far too much unsourced material. M asem (t) 01:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely worthy for RD, famous author with multiple awards, not sure if it is ITN worthy, but it is definitley RD worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's only 12 words which is still next to nothing for such a great figure. And we should be running a new picture every day, not running them for weeks as we just did with Bolsonaro. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Article not ready for posting - Given his notability and coverage in the press, I'm ok to include a blurb. However we often delay or oppose posting many RD nominations because the bibliography or filmography is not adequately cited - I would really hope we apply the same scrutiny here and hold this article to the same quality standards as many other less popular RDs. Schwinnspeed (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD whole sections without citation.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb There is current discussion on the ITN talk page about how stale ITN has been lately. Given that this is a very notable, very well-respected figure in literature, I see no convincing argument for why this shouldn't be posted. SunsetShotguns (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment for the ones who want to voteː It won't get posted as long the article has numerous uncited phrases, also several paragraphs and small but whole sections that are unsourced. Better invest the time you need for voting in sourcing the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on significance, oppose RD on quality There is currently a whole section that is uncited. Never heard this name ever before either... TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And as much as I want a blurb, I have to agree. Furthermore, I am not sure about the reliability of sources like this one and the fact that some sources which may be reliable nonetheless fail verification. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready – sourcing is in serious need of attention.  Schwede 66  04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, Well notable person. Alex-h (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of editors have chipped in and improved the sourcing. We're at 69 references now - certainly enough? I cleaned up the Essays section, which was orange-tagged, adding refs and deleting a couple of essais where I couldn't find a reliable source. Are we fine to blurb now? Khuft (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb posted I find that there is consensus for a blurb and the article quality has improved sufficiently.  Schwede 66  09:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus at time of posting. You took a unilateral decision. 5.151.106.1 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the oppose votes were based on quality, which has drastically improved, not notability, which is the same, and I presume that's the logic Schwede66 used. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting question What made Kundera notable enough to blurb & not Cormac McCarthy? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 on the question. I can reluctantly accept that consensus existed, but the article quality, now reasonable, still does not establish Kundera's claims to fame or significance. Someone else noted this. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped as well, although I don't think either of them warrant a blurb. Mooonswimmer 01:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Global temperature records broken

 * Support in principle, but currently oppose on quality / update grounds: It's in the news, but the article linked is a general one about weather records, and does not cover the current heat records, except as date entries in tables. Articles should have up-to-date relevant prose to be featured ITN, in my view.  Sandstein   08:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The current blurb seems to be vague in that regard, I suspect we're talking about global average temperature, but it currently redirects to Global temperature record. Perhaps either a standalone article or a section inside existing one should be created. Brandmeistertalk  10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - in le news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, kind of surprised there is no ongoing story climate change, as it creates a new content for Wikipedia every single week :) Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Climate change is far too broad to be ongoing. No real start or end date, very loose definitions as to what constitutes it. Better to just leave it to the occasional blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anthropogenic effects leading to permanent changes in the climate.
 * And yes, sometimes it's harder to tell, but "record amount of hurricanes" or "warmest XYZ" is almost certainly climate change and would be encyclopedic. (but repetitive 🙂) Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still too broad for ITN. It would practically be ongoing for the next 100 years. Not really what ITN is for. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow, it's too broad and common knowledge to be news, but i also still require sources to say it exists and is a cause for obvious things. Fun contradiction. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I know some don't believe it exists, but I don't get what we're supposed to do about that. ITN isn't for environmental PSAs exactly.
 * The reality is that it's too broad, there's nothing contradictory about that. It's so long-term it's comparable to putting the War on terror on ongoing between 2001 and 2021 since it was a regular recurring item. It was just too broad of an event.
 * It doesn't help that the notability of most climate-related blurbs comes from the impact of these climate events on human civilisation, rather than being linked to climate change itself.
 * I can see where you're coming from, but even if we were to put it on ongoing, it still wouldn't make sense as climate-related stories are very rarely brought up. Ongoing requires a very regular stream of updates to its target article. In regards to protests or wars, we usually need very regular day-to-day updates on the article and recent developments.
 * For example, we took off the Israeli judicial reform protests since, while there still are lots of protests in Israel, there are not enough regular updates to warrant it being still 'Ongoing'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. However agree with Sandstein that we should improve the target article. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once target article is suitable. Whatever happened to (or why can't we use) "Global Warming"? CoatCheck (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Global warming should be put into context in the blurb. Everyone knows it as a standalone term which is not news anymore. Brandmeistertalk  14:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support this but agree that we need a better target article. I don't think any RS denies this is connected to global warming do that may make sense. --M asem (t) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this certainly seems to be ITN-worthy due to the fact that it's not everyday (hopefully) that a new "Hottest day, week, and month ever" comes to be, I would oppose Global Warming as ongoing, because it's too broad, and has been going on for a long time. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle  However unless I’m missing something, neither of the articles have this in them. Also there needs to be a citation for the causal links mentioned in the blurb. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:2976:4C03:A0E4:E7F5 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, but article needs improvement. Nascar9919 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, Oppose on quality Not a frequent occurrence, but as stated above, the articles need updating. The Kip (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely warm temperatures all over the northern hemisphere, and the North Atlantic. Even for the global warming increases, this year has been extreme and a (hopefully) an outlier. Post when article is improved. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hardly opposing on notability, but I have to agree that neither the current blurb nor the target article are sufficient at this time. The former can be rectified, perhaps, but it may be hard to find a sufficient article for this nom, barring the creation of a particular one for these records. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notability, oppose quality Lots and lots of orange tags that need to be addressed. No doubt that this is notable for ITN though. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. It's unclear what article is supposed to be the target here. The Articles section of the nomination says Weather of 2023, but this is not linked to in the blurb (makes sense, as it's the one in the worst shape at the moment). List of weather records, Global warming, and El Niño are in good shape, but lack prose about the story. <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> 💙 23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * El Nino wouldn't be good as this (even if the yearly version) because this has global effects and El Nino is generally North and South America only (eg the Pacific Ocean) M asem (t) 00:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my comment was unclear, I only mentioned the state of the El Niño article because the proposed blurb links to it; I was not proposing to make that the target. <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> 💙 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on grounds of quality. It's nclear which article(s) should be targeted, and there are many orange tags that need fixing. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 05:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Candidate articles
 * As noted from the outset, the challenge here is finding the best target article. So far, the only article I've found with an update is Weather of 2023.  Possible candidates include:
 * Global warming – redirects to climate change
 * We should figure this out because we're only halfway through the year and there's more to come. I had hoped that some weather specialist editor(s) might help but I suppose they are mostly out enjoying the warm weather. :)
 * In the meantime, the article that's getting most attention from our readership is El Niño. See stats.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't get on board with any of these. Most of them are too broad to reasonably list these record, and as PC notes below, lists probably aren't great targets either. The obvious issue with most of these is that, should these record be broken again, the current record will likely be removed from the article, which is not really an issue for the life of the item while it is at ITN, but is a concern worth noting as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Global warming – redirects to climate change
 * We should figure this out because we're only halfway through the year and there's more to come. I had hoped that some weather specialist editor(s) might help but I suppose they are mostly out enjoying the warm weather. :)
 * In the meantime, the article that's getting most attention from our readership is El Niño. See stats.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't get on board with any of these. Most of them are too broad to reasonably list these record, and as PC notes below, lists probably aren't great targets either. The obvious issue with most of these is that, should these record be broken again, the current record will likely be removed from the article, which is not really an issue for the life of the item while it is at ITN, but is a concern worth noting as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't get on board with any of these. Most of them are too broad to reasonably list these record, and as PC notes below, lists probably aren't great targets either. The obvious issue with most of these is that, should these record be broken again, the current record will likely be removed from the article, which is not really an issue for the life of the item while it is at ITN, but is a concern worth noting as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. A list "article" is not really informative for such news.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Hottest on record so far. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why even post records at all then? What a silly rationale. An unprecedented breaking of a historical temperature record and you just blow it off like it's a hot-dog eating record. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's not unprecedented for late July to top early July, or for mid-August to be "a real scorcher" (relatively). Anyway, Strong Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Neutral - I see someone just got back from a vacation to Switzerland! Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll see you when this is nominated next year. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - not inherently opposed to posting the list, but I can't find where it mentions global temperatures. Seems to do a lot of talking about hottest/coldest per continent, and not much else. A bolded link to climate change (an FA) could work if it's updated to include this information, but that might be outside its scope. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, in early August As uploader of File:07 July - Percent of global area at temperature records - Global warming - NOAA.svg (shown above by nominator), I think we should wait until July 2023 data becomes available from NOAA in a few weeks, when I will update the chart to show July 2023 data. It's July 2023 that is breaking records more than any month to date. Note related ITN candidates: "Ongoing: 2023 heatwaves" and "2023 European heat waves". On principle, I'd prefer Climate change as a destination article, though List of weather records, with this image when updated, is more specific for ITN purposes. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Vilnius summit

 * Wait Until the summit has actually occurred. Currently, the article has nothing detailing what is going on, because it isn't going on. (Side note: the article you put at the top of the ITN candidate template is always bolded.) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Our past approach to any such world leader meeting is to see if there are any significant achievements made by the end of the event and then we'll post that. It should be clear that either Ukraine or Sweden joining NATO is very much ITN-quality material, but we need a definitive on that. M asem (t) 01:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem, @Fakescientist8000 Ok, understood :) I'm new to this whole ITN thing, and I do certainly agree that Ukraine or Sweden joining NATO would be certainly ITN-worthy. In the meantime, I will continue editing and updating the article. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 01:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless something comes out of it. Banedon (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Until after the summit, if anything were to come out of it. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support more in the news and influiental than some of the events currently in ITN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose These summits are exactly the kind of things that we don't and should never post. If they agreed to admit Sweden in NATO, we can post it when the country actually joins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- influential and important, and has the potential to finally see Sweden join NATO. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose have we ever posted a local military alliance summit before? I dont see why we should start now. Daikido (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You should probably strike this comment, accusing users here of canvassing is a direct violation of WP:AGF. Edit: Signing my comment and directly requesting (rather than just suggesting) that you remove your use of an ableist slur at the end of your comment. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:4048:BA85:DEB4:B3D8 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it., you need to improve your conduct at ITN/C. Many of your !votes have been unnecessarily in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Please don't resort to slurs or personal attacks. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Totally agree with Kiril Simeonovski. I've been watching this space for when the inevitable nom would come, and this is not on the ITN level. I'll be back to support a blurb when we Sweden actually joins NATO. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  07:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news and the article is looking good for a new article with 50 editors, 44 citations and lots of content. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's important world news, the article is decent, and there's little else to post currently. Bolsonaro, France, etc. are already yesterday's news.  Sandstein   08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't make exceptions to what we normally don't post just because the current period in news is slow or stale. That's a slippery slope for several other major exceptions. M asem (t) 12:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there's a significant result (Sweden/Ukraine joining). Perhaps consider removing some of the older stuff from the box? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all talk, but nothing changes as a result. Also since Russia's invasion such meetings are WP:ROUTINE. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Covered by ongoing, literally just a meeting of global leaders, like G7. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine and meeting is not noteworthy, only potential conclusions would be noteworthy. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Plenty of media coverage . The summit is already significant for opening a way for Sweden to become a NATO member. It is also significant as unprecedented NATO support for Ukraine is being announced. Mindaur (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3, 7, 8, 10, 13 fail verification, they link to a Ukraine war news feed. it's not a link to an article about the summit.
 * 6, 9, 11, 12 fails relevance, the news story is Turkey becoming approving of Sweden or something else adjacent, not the summit, the summit is more of an afterthought. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not argued by how many references there are. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - All of the coverage. None of the outcomes/deliverables. CoatCheck (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, it's just a meeting. Post sweden/ukraine when it joins NATO (a la finland, or a la croatia joining EU). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring something significant happening, such as Sweden or Ukraine being formally admitted. Otherwise, it's just a meeting, like the G7 summit we decided not to post. The Kip (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst-Ludwig Petrowsky

 * Support - article seems good enough to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks alright. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good, appears to be well-cited and sufficiently holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: JoAnn Watson

 * Comment Date of birth is unreferenced.  Schwede 66  09:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a footnote next to the DoB now. -- PFHLai (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The intro is where one would expect career highlights or a summary of one's life. The intro in this wikibio does not seem to match the materials in the main prose, which needs a paragraph or so about the subject being a media personality and a professor as stated in the intro. --PFHLai (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Giordano

 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Reopened) Ongoing: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

 * Conditional oppose - Article hasn't been updated in 10 days. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated it today. Just check the edit history. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I mean in terms of recent protests. It has been now, but at the time of writing my comment the last update on the protests was on July 1st. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, isn't it still July 10th? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The opposes per "not updated" and "per above" are invalid as the article is getting updated. I am contesting the close but I do not know how.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Article is lacking the regular/daily updates necessary for an ongoing item. There's nothing on any protests since the 1st of the month. The Kip (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not getting updates and no longer all that widely covered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not widely covered, and has not been updated recently. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 00:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have reopened the discussion as I have updated the article before and after the nomination. The article also received regular major (more than a 500 bytes) updates in the month of July here, here, here, here, by different editors in the month July. Some even specifically mentioning protests in July. So the votes with arguments like the article has not been updated in 10 days or there is nothing since the 1 of this month and the per above arguments I don't see as valid points to make.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's still absolutely nothing on anything that happened in between the 1st and 11th, and you've failed to demonstrate it's still getting wide coverage. Your opinion of/disagreement with "invalid points" is not grounds to re-open the discussion. As such, this should be re-closed. The Kip (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip Check the edit from the 1 July which treats protests of the 1st of July with the edit summary add 1 July events. 130'000 people...then the edit from the 6th of July on protests of the 5th of July.  Then the one from the 11 July for the protests of the 11 July. All of them not my updates, with mine it would be way more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly structured as that last section seems to be a chronological order of protests ... which are already discussed in the timeline of the protests? There needs to be a lot of improvement in the article to consider this, particularly if the most current events elevate it to ongoing when really the big issue started around January? M asem (t) 00:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that later sections need to be reworked. I've removed some dubiously notable sentences from the article and will do another round soon. Frankly, i weak support the inclusion of the protests in the 'ongoing' section in light of recent events. If the issue's a lack of updates, i hope someone steps up to fix that Totalstgamer (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I can understand that the frequnecy of updates here is somewhat borderline, but it's very clear the significance and recency of these protests. I personally see the updates that have been made recently as sufficient for posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. Appears to have been only two events in the past 2 weeks, which are only covered by two small updates.  Also, article has major quality issues, mostly of the usual WP:PROSELINE problems that plague these kinds of articles; the lazy "On XX Date..." writing needs to be fixed and put in a more natural narrative flow.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Mirziyoyev remains president of Uzbekistan

 * Comment I don't think we should be attempting to WP:RGW by changing the standard election blurb to reflect a sham election. It's an election either way, and I'm not even sure we have prior consensus to have blurbs be the defining line between real vs. fraud elections. Seems like a WP:NPOV issue, too. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality wise, the article needs quite a bit of work in the length department. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb that doesn't violate WP:RGW or WP:NPOV. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional oppose - Article remains dodgy. Also, the fact that this election was essentially a sham brings down notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not sure what's significant about a dictator staying in power, in an authoritarian one-party nation. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is about the 2023 Uzbek presidential election, this should be reflected in the blurb language. Still ITN/R even if it's a sham election (we post them for Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc). Blurb shouldn't be RGW. I'd say I support on notability as it's still a general "election", but that's what ITN/R is for. It's definitely not ready on quality, though. Counted 8 sentences in the article across 3 sections. <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> 💙 18:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not sure if some dictator whom we all knew would win won, see, the DPRK re-elects Kim Jong-Un every five year, did we post about it ever? no, and about Putin being re-elected in 2020? also no, and so on, and so on. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We actually did post Putin's re-"election" (it was in 2018). <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> 💙 22:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad, but you get the point.Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we actually have precedent of WP:IAR not posing sham elections like this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 such as..? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can dig it up, it was a while ago. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Found it. We did post it, but we didn't imply it was an election. Turkmenistan's election of 2022. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cuban parliamentary election in March wasn’t posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I know no one else seems to agree, but this IS an election, sham or not. The readers can decide of they care or not about this fact. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, at least now I do. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt3, national elections are treated as ITN/R, free or no This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for quality, no prose, no expansion since days. If concerns are addressed, I'd support alt2. It is ITNR but I also understand the concern of Rockstone. So alt2 is a possibility to raise awareness on environment the elections were held in. If this alt2 goes against the rules, I support alt3.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * there is also an unsourced paragraph, no info on presidential campaigns...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm more concerned that the article is in extremely poor shape with absolutely no information on the results and the allegations that the election wasn't free and fair.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's technically an election, but it's not in the news, because nobody doubted the outcome and therefore no major media write about it.  Sandstein   08:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Oppose Rare for me, but it was a sham election and is receiving little international coverage. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article doesn’t make it clear that this was a sham election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The election article barely has any prose. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;The ballot boxes might as well have had paper shredders in them. Kurtis (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mel Wakabayashi

 * Oppose for now the article is generally well cited, but there are way too many CN tags for the article to be posted ❤History Theorist❤
 * Support looks better now ❤History Theorist❤  16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed up the CN tags, rest of the article appears fine. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have posted this if it hadn't been for an unreferenced date of birth.  Schwede 66  09:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been looking for the past two days. The best I could come up with are hockeydb and statscrew, and I am not sure if they are RS enough. Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I was also unable to locate his date of birth from newspapers.com. Luckily the IIHF source states that he was born in 1943, so we at least have the year cited. I've adjusted the article a bit to account for this. Curbon7 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benno C. Schmidt Jr.

 * Weak support Good length, and good sourcing besides the Woody Allen statements and one uncited statement in the Other professional and civic service subsection. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready I've placed three citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  06:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Final cn resolved. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alain Besançon

 * Oppose Article is far too stubby for ITNRD standards, and the Publications section (which is the majority of the article) is entirely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. It's still a stub.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The French wikibio may be a source of materials to expand the English wikibio. The German wikibio may be a source of ISBN to add to the list of publications in the English wikibio. Not much time (eligibility) remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Hedges

 * Support looks good to me, it's pretty well-cited ❤History Theorist❤  01:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support some paragraphs could use more citations mid-paragraph rather than just one at the end of a bulk of text / several sentences? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's quality is good in both the citation and length departments. No reason this should be held up; marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted'. However, I'm not as convinced by the sourcing as others may be. I echo Abcmaxx's concern, but with a quick spotcheck of a few sources the article appears fine for RD. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Suárez
Suppport article is fairly sourced now. *Oppose for now. Ballon d'or sounds good but is unsourced. Much more in the article as well. Article needs quite some work .Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Paradise Chronicle I agree, and I'll see what I can do to bring its quality up in the next few days. Oltrepier (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as there are quite a few statements and items listed in Honours that lack citations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paradise Chronicle @Fakescientist8000 It was quite a challenge, but I think I've managed to get the whole "Honours" section covered now.
 * I'll try to work on the career section now, since it's still pretty skeletal. Also, should I actually cut one or two photos from the article, just to clean it up? Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oltrepier Excellent job in the Honours section. Now, do you think you could get the one remaining CN tag? If you can do that, consider my !vote a support. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000 I am not sure if it works, but I've stricken my oppose when I changed to support. Now its 4 support to 1 oppose while your oppose is the only one. Maybe striking the vote after one moved sides, helps the vote counting script to keep the tally right.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paradise Chronicle, good idea! I've done exactly that just now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just wanted to say that I'm hoping to work on the article myself in the next few days, and I've also called for support at WP:FOOTBALL. Oltrepier (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment (pt. 2): following the advice of @Fakescientist8000, I should have helped fill in all of the major citation gaps. I don't know if this is enough for ITN standard, though... Oltrepier (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good work there. This is ready, I think. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Much better on citations, but some parts feel like cite overkill. Still feels like in needs refinement, but it's certainly good enough for ITN deaths. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Govvy It definitely is in need of refinement, lol...
 * I'm hoping to help improve it in the next few days/weeks! Oltrepier (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient for ITN but obviously as a bio could do with many more improvements. Kingsif (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Shipp

 * Support Article has enough sourcing + length in order to pass ITNRD standards. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above, article is ready for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed a few missing periods. Article looks ok to post, will mark this as ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  06:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: K. Ravindranathan Nair

 * Weak oppose Article has some sourcing issues, although those should be easily fixed. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose but oppose until the sourcing issue is solved. Several of the sources failed verification by me and the filmography should be sourced as well. But I believe there is enough to be found on him easily.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Still significant sourcing issues, with several Failed verification tags. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Tan

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. Interesting coincidence to have 2 Singaporean lawyers with the same last name on the same day. - Indefensible (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - seems fine.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's quality is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tan Yock Lin

 * Oppose Article has less than 320 words. Too stubby. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still too stubby, even if the article is now technically start class.  Schwede 66  05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it still too stubby? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Özkan Uğur

 * Oppose Both the Filmography and Discography sections need citations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of MOS:FILMOGRAPHY (and the linked WikiProject), sourcing of the filmography section is actually not needed unless it's difficult to confirm, though I've still added sources. WikiProject Discographies says general references are sufficient. ~Styyx Talk ? 17:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A general reference that supports all the roles in the table is fine, but without that, we do expect each entry to be sourced. M asem (t) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Discography section is unsourced.  Schwede 66  04:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Strong oppose Absolutely not. Still big updates happening, the war is still having a worldwide impact, and there is no signs of it ever slowing down. Just to give another perspective, we had COVID in ongoing for like two or three years before we removed it. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I get the idea, but its still relevant. I still see it the news, but the big updates may just be "smaller" than say a year ago. Maybe a discussion could be held though that maybe the article should be moved to the more relevant counteroffensive though.
 * TheCorriynial (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, but change the name - I agree that the war has slowed down, but it has continuously been front-page news for the last year-and-a-half. Go to the main page of any news outlet, I guarantee there's at least one article about the conflict at the top. Removing the COVID-19 Pandemic from ongoing was due to the fact that it was hardly being covered by the news in any major way, and it was becoming more clear by the day that COVID-19 would become endemic, similar to the Flu.
 * There is no indication that the same will happen with the Russo-Ukrainian War. It has only escalated since the initial invasion, from the missile strikes in Poland, to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis, to the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam, to the Wagner Rebellion. It is clear that the war is still going on and in increased severity.
 * Now, I do agree that the item 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' is becoming a little outdated now, and I think changing the ongoing title to 'Russo-Ukrainian War' would be best, though this change will probably need to be reflected in the target articles. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Change name to Russo-Ukrainian War Braganza (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Workshop: What should the target article in ongoing be?
Considering that there is initially a unanimous opposition to removal but some support for changing the target article, it stands to reason to discuss this in more detail. Potential alternative target articles include:
 * Alt1: Ukrainian counteroffensive
 * Alt2: Russo-Ukrainian War
 * Alt3: Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 - present)

Feel free to nominate more alternatives. Your opinions are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the main article should be removed altogether. While nearly all now are aware of the main invasion article, it may still provide general context. We can have those specific trends in parentheses (e.g. amid recent announcement on cluster munitions), like Russian invasion of Ukraine (Ukrainian counteroffensive). There was no such dramatic and protracted precedent in Ongoing before, so showing major spinoffs in parentheses may be warranted. Brandmeistertalk  14:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Im actually kinda in this camp, since they suggested this, and it could possibly become a standard that could be used for more things down the road. although I'd probably put either the Ukrainian counteroffensive or the timeline. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Either this or Alt 3 seems best. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alt3. And I decidedly feel that the article title must reflect the criminal and malicious role of russia. Yes, not capitalised. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should keep it as 'Russian Invasion of Ukraine' when the conflict has long transformed past that phase just because we want to make some moral point about the war. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 - the invasion proper isn’t really ongoing anymore, as Russia’s failed to take substantial territory in recent times and it’s more of an occupation now. The Kip (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Braganza (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion back in April by User:Interstellarity to add a timeline to the ongoing entry (at that time, it was Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – present), obviously now renamed). The proposal failed to garner consensus, though a key thing to note is that proposal called for it to be formatted as "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)", whereas this is straight up swapping the main article with the timeline.
 * As for my vote, per ranked choice !voting,
 * Alt3: reiterating what I stated in the aforementioned discussion in April, the primary article doesn't really go into details about the actual offensives. If prose is more important, than...
 * Alt2: which has prose, but focuses on a specific aspect of the war instead of the broader theme.
 * Alt1: not receiving daily updates.
 * — Knightof  theswords  16:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ALT2 It's important to always cover the more broader picture when discussing about something in Ongoing. Alt1 would only cover a small portion of the war, alt3 same thing but using the term "invasion" which really isn't suitable anymore considering it's getting more and more stale on the battlefield. Alt2 sums it up perfectly in my opinion, because it is a war that has been going on for over a year now and would also cover the other alts such as the Ukrainian counteroffensive aswell as the actual "invasion" itself. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose change The existing article – Russian invasion of Ukraine – is clearly dominant with our readership, having |Russo-Ukrainian_War|Outline_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War|Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations|Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine|2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive|Category:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine far more readers and the only candidate in the Top 100 for June. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe that article should be renamed to 'Russo-Ukrainian War (2022 - Present)' or something along those lines. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was indeed once moved to that title (minus [pun intended] the shorter hyphen) following this discussion, before being moved to the current title following this RM. — Knightof  theswords  23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And what of it? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. To quote in the discussion I linked in my !vote, when he was going on about his experience reading the mother article, Where is significant fighting happening? Are there skirmishes happening all along the front lines, or is it relatively peaceful? I have no idea. —  Knightof  theswords  23:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How many times must we tell you that readership stats genuinely do not matter here? The Kip (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what matters here as the alternatives presented are wildly different. ALT1 is forward-looking, ALT2 is a broad historical perspective and ALT3 is a proseline ticker.  The readership stats show which of these views is making the most impact and the existing link is clearly dominant.  To present more varied perspectives, we would need a navigational template with multiple links as we did for COVID.  If we're just presenting one link then it should be the big one that most people are looking for. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ALT1 or ALT2, but a preference for ALT2 - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see why people prefer ALT3, as it is pretty much the WP:COMMONNAME at this point, but I do think the nature of the conflict has shifted from the initial Russian invasion of the country to a prolonged occupation grinding down to trench warfare. It'd be equivalent to terming the entire Western Front of WW1 as the 'German invasion of France'.
 * If I was to cast ranked choice votes like Knight above, it'd be:
 * Alt2
 * Alt3
 * Alt1
 * PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Alt2 properly describes the overall event occurring. The invasion was always a piece of the larger puzzle, and to be honest it's been the target for way too long. Russia and Ukraine have been at war for over a decade, but I feel like people seem to believe the war only started with the invasion. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The war started in 2014, but it was added to “Ongoing” b/c of the invasion. I think that linking to the war would be overly broad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So? The invasion is part of the larger war. If people want to look at more recent events they can navigate to them from there. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 basically describes what is currently happening, the war had stopped being an invasion since the recapturing of Kherson, and the Russo-Ukrainian War is basically what it has been since 2014, so I feel that "Russo-Ukrainian War" is basically the best title, for that the war has been ongoing for 9 years, and this phase of the war has been ongoing for over a year. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russia is still occupying Ukraine, and has done since 2014. If Ukraine was to start defeating Russia on Russian territory such as Belgorod or Moscow then it would be a war in the traditional sense. At the moment Ukraine is merely repelling invaders from its territory. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt 2. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on since 2014. Changing the ongoing link to that would be further expanding the scope of the link to not focus on current events. Keeping the link as is or linking to a more-focused timeline sub-article is fine. It seems people are arguing for what the invasion article's name should be, which shouldn't be done at ITN but via a RM. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep current target – Regardless of its title, Russian invasion of Ukraine is the article covering the phase of the war from February 2022 to the present, including the recent counteroffensive and the Wagner rebellion. DecafPotato (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose alts. Recentism, the counteroffensive is not really breaking news and a timeline either. The current one is the most accurate in my opinion as the war really takes place in the Ukraine and not in Russia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article is the correct one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed changes The current target article is the right one. If it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any changes. The current link is working just fine. --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose any changes keeping the russian invasion of ukraine article is perfectly fine for me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose any changes per above. I'd be fine with including some of the alts in parentheses, but the current target is the correct one. Davey2116 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any changes Everything that could be said has already been said above. Nothing wrong with this target article, but there are issues with using the broader 2014-present war article (too broad) or the current counteroffensive (too narrow). <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> 💙 05:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Violeta Hemsy de Gainza

 * Weak oppose as per a few uncited statements in the Early life and education section. Once that is cleared up, consider this !vote a support. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment wanted to nominate, but was not ready yet. She was mostly a music educator, for children and youth, improvisation, music therapy, president of a Latin American organisation. I need sleep first. There are facts commented out, - a native speaker to check what could be sourced would be of great help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am done with checking, throwing out some refs lost, adding others, reducing the hidden facts. More lead would be nice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it sounds like the article had needed some work. In its current state, I find it to be a well-rounded and interesting article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kara Puketapu

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has enough sourcing/length to meet ITNRD standards. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I removed two phrases in need of a citation and added a citation to the last phrase with a citation needed tag. I expanded the article quite a bit, too and as for for me the article is in a fair shape now. Informative article on a prominent supporter of Maori culture in New Zealand.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Dutch governmental crisis

 * Oppose - We don't normally post internal political debates and governmental reshuffling like this. If this leads to a sustained political crisis in the Netherlands akin to the one experienced by the UK last year then maybe, but right now, no. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it is not a reshuffle, the coalition ended and Rutte wants to resign Braganza (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (Resigning in this context does not mean he leaves btw) Dajasj (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He's still going to be Prime Minister of a caretaker government. While his resignation has bumped up the notability a little, I still think this is not notable for front page news.
 * Changing my vote to Wait until the next general election. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The event regards one of the main players within the European Union, and considering also for how long Rutte has been in charge and the surprising results of the latest local elections in the Netherlands this crisis could pave the way for huge changes in the country. Fm3dici97 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The cabinet has now collapsed. New elections are in November of this year. The blurb should probably reflect this. Tuzi-bunbun (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on Significance. Not the typical sort of political crisis posted to ITN, but certainly seems significant enough nevertheless. Not too hot on the current blurb though. Think we could use a better phrasing then "[falls] apart", and it's worth noting that the article lacks prose and could use much more discussion of the break-down and background thereof. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support and adding alt blurb - major political crisis in the Netherlands that could have major ramifications for years to come. Mark Rutte has been in power for a decade, so a resignation defintale means something; we posted the UK version of this last year as Precarious pointed out so it would be systemic bias to not do the same for the Batavians. Oppose on quality however; the article is literally a table wall. — Knightof  theswords  (Talk) 22:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have not really seen Batavian used in that sense beyond Jakarta. Gotitbro (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * added stub quality on most big issues they faced and {expand dutch}. Bart Terpstra (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until a new PM is appointed per WP:ITNR. Right now, it's just a routine political matter as PrecariousWorlds notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are likely to be new elections, meaning Rutte and friends will remain in office until a new government is elected (this might take some time, so it's possible he'll be in post until Q2'24)This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So that's when it would be appropriate to post. Not now. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - wait until elections. The current government will remain in power as a caretaker government until new elections are held, so nothing has actually changed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the new elections aren't for several months. This isn't a Johnson/Truss or Truss/Sunak situation where the successor is fairly quick;y chosen. The biggest news is the elections have effectively been moved up two years. That is new itself independent of the actual results. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your perspective and understand it, but I personally don't think that news alone merits a blurb, since we will post the results of the election anyway when the appropriate time comes. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on Boris/Truss precedent This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll say it: it was a bad decision and should not be used as precedent, imo. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait — Per Presidentman. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, mention that this will lead to elections half November at the earliest as a consequence. Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So are we going to post the elections in November too now? Is that where this is going? Whenever a parliament disbands, we'll post both events? Seems excessive. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support If there is no immediate successor, then this this the time to post. General elections are ITNR, but a decade long PM reigning is also of note. Gotitbro (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the PM has already resigned once already (leading to the '21 elections) and nothing of note came of it. Seeing that this is not a unique event in recent Rutte/Dutch history, I am striking my outright support. Gotitbro (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2021 was only a few months before the election, while the next elections where planned for 2025 Braganza (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news now. The article could use some fleshing out but so it goes.  Note that it contains a couple of graphs which are broken, saying "Graphs are temporarily unavailable due to technical issues."  All graphs were disabled for "security reasons" and have been snafu for months now.  "WMF teams are working quickly on a plan..." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Rutte is major figure, news on his stepping down should be posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Resignation of a government is notable and in the news now.  331dot (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - No doubt about it. Now is not the time to wait while the crisis is in the news and we are at its point of apogee in terms of newsworthiness. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Who makes the final call? and when? 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not on significance, but the fact that there is really no real coverage of the crisis in either of the given pages. I see one line on the coalition page, and only a brief mention of the issue in the Rutte's lede. This should be a significant discussion of the events leading to this to give context. --M asem (t) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * this has been adressed. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until new elections are held and new PM is chosen - from my understanding Rutte will remain PM until then. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose misleading blurb wich is not the main reason for the collapse   Shadow4dark (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was most likely (hearsay) timed to break up on this issue rather than one of the many other issues for optics. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb I per all above. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this is unusual for us to post on ITN, but this seems significant enough to post due to the fact that the Netherlands is a major player in the EU, and the collapse of the ruling government seems like an pretty important event. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with much more concise added alt3, also because we have little else that's new currently at ITN.  Sandstein   20:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not add "Elections will be held in the fall"? Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Normally I’d say wait for the election, but that’s three months away, so let’s go ahead with this. The Kip (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither target article Fourth Rutte cabinet or Mark Rutte discusses this news beyond two sentences. TarkusAB talk / contrib 03:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until a new government is formed per ITNR. Governments come and go all the time. We blurb the transition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * there wont be a new government, snap elections are the most likeliest possibility Braganza (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should post the results of the new elections as per normal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is months from now while this is in the news right this moment. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah it's already two days ago Braganza (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We will post the election as well since it'll be ITN/R, but this is in the news now. There is precedent for this: we posted the resignations of Theresa May and Boris Johnson separately from the installations of their successors (and those were party leadership elections). Davey2116 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, as pointed out before -- there is nil but one sentence in the cabinet article and about three sentences in the lede of Rutte article which is nowhere near enough of a significant update for this, if this is really as significant as many of the support !votes say above. I expect a couple of paragraphs if not more to explain the background, the changes, the process of change, and any possible impacts on Danish and EU region this may have. --M asem (t) 01:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The general rule at ITN (conceding rare exceptions) is that we expect an event under nomination to rate its own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You wish. The lead blurb for over a week now has been about a court ruling on Jair Bolsonaro.  That event not only doesn't have a separate article, it doesn't even have a separate section in his article. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, his biographical article dedicates a portion of the Post-presidency (2023–present) section to it. That's more than can be said about this proposed blurb as of right now. <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> 💙 07:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A separate article has never been the case for ITN. We expect a significant update, and while it would seem this type of event could warrant its own article, it is not required as long as we see paragraphs of content about this situation, if it is as severe and important as the !votes above suggest. The lack of any attempt to expand on this is worrisome. M asem (t) 12:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, but oppose on quality until at least one of the target articles has at minimum one paragraph of sourced prose about the news story. If I were a reader clicking on a bolded link in a news blurb about a political crisis, I'd expect to be able to read more about said political crisis. If/when the target article is updated (or if/when a new target article about the political crisis is created), consider my opposition dropped. <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> 💙 05:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How's the current state of the article?
 * I'll try and expand apology for colonial past, energy and the AZC's tommorow. Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you to those that updated the Fourth Rutte cabinet page. The "Becoming demissionary" section is sufficient. I support on both significance and quality now.
 * Comment. this morning he announced he won't be running again. source. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But he will remain as PM in a caretaker role until the elections are held, right? I just don't understand why we would post what is effectively the same story twice. This is like posting someone's election and then their inauguration. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it's a governmental crisis, it's not "normal". Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support its infuential news at the moment. Also, the Netherlands are known to be a stable political entity, so a shake up is news.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb  after improvements Shadow4dark (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per Rockstone. Just post the election result and the new PM and coalition government getting sworn in when they eventually take place. Until then, the current cabinet is still caretaker government. --StellarHalo (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added an Altblurb reflecting my prior comments regarding this as an ITN item in spite of prior precedent on regime change. Again, I believe the main news here is new elections being called, NOT as much the resignation due to Rutte's government continuing in a caretaker capacity. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose. I live in the Netherlands, and this is nothing new. Every single one of the Rutte cabinets "resigned", only for them to return to power because Rutte "didn't actually resign". We could wait until the elections or if a cabinet forms again. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice hyperbolic reaction but Rutte II didn't resign ;) TheDutchViewer (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the cabinet members did, though 🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱. Still kind of counts <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have to concur. I also post-posting oppose. Wrong decision made. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Why does your profile say you're retired? Just curious <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They changed the blurb Shadow4dark (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull - So we posted a WP:CRYSTALBALL? Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Milan fire

 * Oppose Although this is tragic, sadly, accidents like this happen all the time, and the article is still a stub. Article will need to be first expanded, then we may talk about whether it is ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet again, while tragic, it is unlikely to be a enduring news topic. --M asem (t) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support | Meets standards and has international news coverage. I will remind contributors that there is no MINDEATHS criterion This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to insufficient importance (unless it's discovered that the fire was started deliberately) & the article not being good enough. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia is no tabloid.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is tabloidy about this? Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tabloids focus on murders, deaths and local human rights violations. The event is sure tragic, but has no lasting coverage or influence on a wider area.  Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately not notable enough to be covered in ITN. Whilst it is sad, this has no place in being in ITN because of the very little impact it's going to have on anything. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Namboothiri (artist)

 * Support. Article appears in sufficient shape. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No CN tags or orange tags, article seems to be in okay condition. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bibliography section needs either citations or ISBNs. Ping me once done. Support Article looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000 I’ve added ISBNs to the bibliography, can you take a look again? Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve added ISBNs to the bibliography, article looks good enough now. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Graham Clark (tenor)

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of prose and well referenced. TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jeffrey Carlson

 * Support Article looks okay. TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article appears to be a little thin on prose. Perhaps not to the point of an "oppose", but it could still be fleshed out (especially given the "Career" section looks just like a traditional filmography in prose). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Beverley Salmon

 * Oppose both the Community work and Career section have uncited statements. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mutulu Shakur

 * Support Article's quality is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing issues are resolved. Adequate depth of coverage. Marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Essop Pahad

 * Oppose Article has a few uncited statements that need clearing up. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Iván Márquez
Wait sources, most prominently El Pais (one of the better newspapers in the Spanish/Latin american press says there is no confirmation yet. Others say so as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * El Tiempo is probably to most conclusive yet, with them claiming to have information abou his death but the Venezuelan Ministry not confirming it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article quite a bit now. Added small sections on him being a teacher, peace nagotiations in 2012-2016 and an assassination attempt after he returned to the arms. But there is still the early years in the FARC, peace negotiations in Mexico and the ones with the Pastrana government around 2000s which are in a poor state. The political career ahead of the FARC might also add some phrases. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arnaldo Forlani

 * Oppose Article has major sourcing issues which need to be fixed ASAP. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've gotten to where I've gotten to. The article has the basics of Farloni's political career and all correctly sourced. can you please take a look? Thanks!. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --2601:249:8E00:420:ACB3:7483:9BF:B6A3 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good job on fixing up this article. G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brendan Daly (politician)

 * Support citing concern of the nominator fixed Josey Wales Parley 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As there are still a few unsourced statements in the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all the CN tags. is it good now? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Looks to be fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Attila Abonyi

 * Oppose Article has a few uncited statements that need sourcing. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Meta launches Threads

 * Oppose and snow close — Product announcements aren't suitable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I also don't feel like this is "of this caliber" wrt the acquisition of Twitter, considering that was a major platform with a massive dollar amount and, even at the time, was believed to have major implications for a critical platform. I also feel like posting it to ITN would feel... I don't know. I can't get with the idea that we should post it bc it's a reaction to Twitter's dumpster fire, and it feels all routine coverage and it's in vogue to cover every little thing going on related to Twitter right now. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't rush to it, but I will leisurely oppose at this point because it is way too early to tell that this will be a major competitor to Twitter, even given the massive boom within its first day of launch. I think the notability of this really is, as TenTonParasol, subordinated to the notability of Twitter's major meltdown. Otherwise it's just a new social media service. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose companies launch new services all the time, and that this is only getting attention due to the nonsense happening at Twitter doesn't make this any more special. M asem (t) 19:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news as one would expect -- modern journalism seems to be largely driven by Twitter now. And the article is helpful in explaining that this new thing is essentially just an extension of Instagram, which helps me ignore it too.  And it's a good trailer for the cage match which sounds much more interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "And it's a good trailer for the cage match which sounds much more interesting" really hits the uncertainty I was expressing earlier. Posting this to ITN feels like, it's not literally promotional or RGW, but it feels inappropriate to me somehow to post it to ITN on the basis of highlighting the "stark differences" between how they're run or as a "trailer" for a different event entirely. An ITN bullet isn't for drumming up attention to other events and issues that aren't the thing at hand, however connected or adjacent those are. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to that good ol' CRYSTAL. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. We cant' assume this app will become a real Twitter competitor, and even then such news may not be fitting for ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose New app launches all the time... big deal. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Johannesburg gas leak

 * Oppose - this article is currently only 3 sentences long and does not provide any detailed information Chanelle821 (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait but leaning oppose on significance. While tragic, it doesn't seem to be the type of event that yet will have any news-worthy tail, and may fail NEVENT. --M asem (t) 12:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is currently a stub, and this incident does not seen significant for ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fails to meet the requisite significance. It looks like it passes NEVENT by the fact that multiple countries covered it, but I wouldn't hold out hope for any lasting effect. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not a notable news for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- I'd support posting this if such a thing happened in the US, or in any other western nation. This is unusual and notable. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, Oppose on Quality -- the article is woefully short for the major catastrophe that it is. I don't know if the article is short because there is no coverage of it (which is an indication that reliable sources do not care about it) or because nobody has incorporated sources to the article. Rockphed (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Brăila Bridge

 * Oppose Not seeing the significance here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting, but an incremental record that lacks much significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any "xth largest" where x is not 1st is really not going to cut it for ITN. --M asem (t) 17:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insignificant bridge built with a th, not an st. I'm not too sure this would even make the cut for DYK. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough for ITN, while this certainly is kind of interesting, this is the "Third" longest suspension bridge in Europe, if it was the single longest bridge in the world, then maybe it may be ITN-worthy, but this isn't even the longest in the world, it's not even the longest in Europe. This really seens too insignificant to post. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose So Romania opened a new suspension bridge. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Third largest bridge doesn't fit notability standards for ITN IMO. Schwinnspeed (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rob Agerbeek

 * Weak oppose Citations need to be added in the Awards and Honours sections. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added citations for the awards section. anything else? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onegreatjoke I think the Discography could use some citations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walkiria Terradura

 * Oppose Article has less than 320 words, which in my opinion, is too stubby. Support No major issues in the article with regards to sourcing, either. Looks good. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000 There are now 322 words. Long enough? Perhaps it's time for a re-review? -- PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. After further review, this article looks good enough for ITNRD. Further expansion is helpful but no longer necessary. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thank you for the timely re-review, Fakescientist8000. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jacob Larsen (cricketer)

 * Oppose Article has less than 320 words, and is too stubby in my opinion. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Gilbert (composer)

 * Gerda Arendt went out of their way to update the article to where i think it's good for the main page now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I referenced the works, in addition to his website. A discography would be nice, but needs to be written - I think it works as it it is. Today was a tenor, and tomorrow a pianist. We can't get them all to GA state ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks fairly good. There is one malformed citation for "Farings for sopranino recorder and piano (Forsyth) 15', 2000", but otherwise I see no issues. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't see problem with that ref, - was it fixed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was! Looks good to go now. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

[Attention needed] RD: Keith Ball

 * Support This looks like it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Eva Maria Daniels

 * Oppose until expanded. Article has 3 sentences of prose as of right now, and needs to be seriously expanded. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This wikibio has 44 words. This is not acceptable, and must be expanded before we should even consider posting this. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above. Alex-h (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a sub-stub. --PFHLai (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Writers Guild of America strike

 * Oppose - Article has practically received no updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing - per List of productions impacted by the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike. This ongoing strike is increasingly disruptive to television and movie production. Article appears updated to me. Jusdafax (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose first, article has had no major update recently, secondly, this affects only the entertainment industry of America, and barely has any affects on a worldwide scale, and thirdly, given that this had already been nominated on 2 May, this is not recent news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the strike is important here from an entertainment industry POV, its daily events...which are next to nil as negotiations continue...have little coverage and don't really change day to day. The end of the strike would be the proper ITN point. M asem (t) 23:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My rationale from the previous nomination still holds. --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The only daily updates are essentially to add actors to the supporters section. I've expressed skepticism over the appropriateness and encyclopedic value of that section, even. And then totally forgot to follow-up on it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Public broadcaster RTÉ involved in scandal

 * Conditional support - this would be the equivalent of the BBC, PBS/NPR, CBC, Australia's ABC, etc. being exposed for operating a massive slush fund. There is precedent in posting media stories on ITN, most recently the Dominion suit. Big news in Ireland; we shouldn't automatically discount this because it comes from a minor country per WP:ITNCDONT. However, much of the article is in list format. - Knightoftheswords  (Talk · Contribs) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until some point of legal conclusion, such as a govt imposed fine or convictions. --M asem (t) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, oppose on quality at the moment Orange tag under "Timeline" that needs to be addressed. If it wasn't for the orange tag, I'd suggest we wait per Masem. TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this rises to the level of ITN regardless of how major a country it happened in. As far as I can see the controversial payments total less than €1m over a number of years? Obviously big news in Ireland at the moment because of the latest revelations, but this story has been rumbling along for a good part of this year. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing much coverage of this outside the UK and Ireland. I do see one article from France last month briefly discussing it, but that's stale. I disagree that we'd be posting this if it was from the CBC or NPR. For CBC, I don't recall anyone ever nominating the Ghomeshi scandal, for example. The use of the word 'fraud' in the blurb seems exaggerated. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN does not require widespread or international coverage; that helps with sourcing, but there can be major events outside the angelosphere that are not covered by BBC, NYTimes. etc. I can't tell at this time if this is such an event (would expect my point of conclusion would tell), though. M asem (t) 21:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major news story in Ireland and could possibly be the end of the national broadcaster as currently established. The impact of this is far-reaching in terms of public trust in Ireland. Further significant developments are expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.116.51 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, my read of the badly written and poorly laid out article is that the RTÉ was overpaying its top talent, presumably to retain them. Any scandal is the result of the public nature of the funding, or more precisely, the lack thereof. This is a tempest in a teapot, with politicians trying to make the RTÉ look bad so that their decision to cut funding is ignored. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, Wait for some legal result. Alex-h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Coco Lee

 * Oppose Article's sourcing needs fixing, as there is an orange tag and many uncited statements in the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tag, additional sources needed. TwistedAxe   [contact]  18:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not nearly notable enough for RD Dr Fell (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr Fell "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional suppport, once the citation issues have been resolved. – robertsky (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once some more refs added. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8D80:D3C:4CB:CA7D (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now (as updater) as there was a rather large passage that was an exact match with Shenzhen Daily text in English, which suggests there may be other copyvio and close paraphrasing issues throughout. (Started to edit, but still needs proper fixing.) Also...there is a rather large discography/tours section that appears to have no citations at the moment (although the film/television section looks ok). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle Assuming that this is the Shenzhen Daily article you're referring to, it is dated to 2017. However, looking through the article history, the content has been on Wikipedia since 2012. So I'd guess that the Shenzhen Daily article copied Wikipedia instead. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 00:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lucie Person Awesome. Thanks for tracking that down. Discography section is still a problem though. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography, Videography and Concert tours sections remain unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: John Berylson

 * Oppose on quality the article is a stub and there are a ton of Citation Needed tags ❤History Theorist❤  23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still too thin (only 266 words of prose) and in need of more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Iran joins SCO

 * Oppose I mean... good for Iran I suppose, but I don't see how this has any long-lasting impact in the long term. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This could definitely have more significance than a lot of entries here, like if Sweden joins NATO. However article quality is not sufficient for posting on the main page. - Indefensible (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this has any more significance than a country abandoning its 200-year long neutrality policy and providing NATO with greater geographical leverage. That, unlike this, has more impact long-term due to possible future conflicts with Russia. TwistedAxe   [contact]  01:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely could be argued either way. Sweden only has a population of 10 million whereas Iran has over 80 million though, so a lot more people are in the country involved. - Indefensible (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * SCO is also not as notable and doesn't have the same geopolitical or economic value as NATO or the EU does. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Last SCO ascension, in 2017, was not posted. Not that this is a vote against, I would just like to provide this context. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality The orange tag, 7 cn tags and 3 bsn tags should be addressed before we consider posting. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on significance as this is the largest regional organisation in the world in terms of population, area and total GDP. With all resemblance to the European Union in its early stages, if we could post the accession of new EU member states, any objection to posting accession of new SCO members states on significance would be pure POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's amusing to read the SCO's previous condemnation of Iran's policies in the UN. And to note that their main military arm is called RATS ("I can't think of anything worse than a skull ... Um, a rat's...").  Anyway, the headlines that I'm seeing in the news for the SCO summit are more diverse: "At SCO meet, India refuses to back China’s BRI project", "SCO summit: Putin says sanctions making Russia stronger", "SCO Summit: Modi says ‘some countries’ are terror havens as Pakistan PM looks on".  I don't get the impression that adding Iran to this club is going increase their "cooperation".  It seems about as fraternal and collaborative as Wikipedia... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like they're welcoming any authoritarian Eurasian country with anti-Western sentiment to counter Western agenda. Iran is one of them, so they are about to "forget" past sour issues. Brandmeistertalk  15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a nontrivial addition to an ecomomic and defense pact, and I feel that if we posted NATO membership, we ought to do the same for what appears to be a rival organization even if some of the similarities are merely nominal in nature. --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "This is a nontrivial addition to an ecomomic and defense pact" - SCO isn't a defense pact. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:4048:BA85:DEB4:B3D8 (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How about that. In reading the article and its supporting references, I'm surprised to discover that "defense pact" and "defense organization" really are two different things. That'll teach me to learn to read! Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on signfiicance = I don't even see this on (the front page of) Al Jazeera news. More subjectively, I have never heard of the SCO so I'm not sure it's a very relevant geopolitical pact. I might subjectively put it below Five Eyes in importance, and I wouldn't even post a (hypothetical) news event for a country joining five eyes, for example. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to gauge the validity of this statement, as it's in the Warsaw Pact article and it's a statement with a CN tag: The USSR's successor Russia and some other post-Soviet states joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 1992, and the Shanghai Five in 1996, which was renamed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) after Uzbekistan's addition in 2001. I had imagined SCO as being a parallel to the Warsaw Pact to effectively operate as a counter-NATO organization. Again, if we are posting news stories about membership in NATO (we nominated one particular such event like three or four times at different stages of joining), then why would we withhold similar news items regarding the SCO? Yes, the world's most well-known English-speaking economic superpower is not a member state, but China, India, and Russia are not small powers. To me, this seems like naked Eurocentrism, but perhaps I am missing something. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The SCO is not a military alliance. There is some military cooperation, but if one country gets invaded the others are not treaty-bound to assist. Therefore it is not the same as the Warsaw Pact or NATO. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, my first reaction to "I have never heard of the SCO" is "wow, you are ignorant". Banedon (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the SCO does. I have never in my life seen it in a news article. It is not relevant, and being the succesor to the more relevant (for its time of course) CSTO does not impart notability. SCO is simply not notable to me at all. I searched for SCO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization on SCMP and Al Jazeera too and didn't get many results - seems like it's not relevant in the non-West either. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The SCO is certainly not the equivalent of NATO or the former Warsaw Pact. It includes Pakistan and India (can anyone really believe they would come to each other's military assistance?) as well as China and India (dito). It's not like the EU either (or ASEAN or Mercosur for that matter), where dozens of treaties have weaved together an economic trading block. In the case of the EU, it goes even further, with member states having handed over part of their sovereignty to the supranational organisation. The SCO is not much more than a talking shop, like so many others in the world, and this news is not particularly relevant. Khuft (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the following: In the case of the EU, it goes even further, with member states having handed over part of their sovereignty to the supranational organisation is not true at all, that is not how the EU works and you should probably strike this bit out. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, the ability to regulate your own currency is a part of a country's sovereignty, so he isn't wrong. Plus all the stuff about EU member states having to abide by the Treaty on European Union. AryKun (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I guess this is big news for Iran, but this certainly does not have any major impact on the world, and this does not seem significant enough to post. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The SCO has four nuclear powers and half the world's population. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes I understand its not NATO, nor will it ever likely become a rival organization to NATO in terms of scale or structure. Yes I also understand the significance of Sweden ascending to become a member of NATO after centuries of neutrality, and am not arguing that this news about IRAN is anywhere near as significant. There is no point in comparing the two. But there are many many discussions on this forum about ITN becoming more representative of global news (a noteworthy goal) Including news about an organization that covers 40% of the world's population and 1/3 of the global economy is certainly a step forward in that direction. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * being more global should not be at the cost of giving false equivalency to nominations though. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Considering Iran's foreign policy over the last few decades, joining the SCO is really not a major or surprising development. --StellarHalo (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and significance the organisation is barely notable, and is basically a poorly made Russian knock-off of a trade block, same as that cheap Gucci handbag at your local flea market isn't the same as the handbag from the Gucci store in central Milan. Russia can only trade with a handful of authoritarian states so choosing Iran out of a choice of countries such as Eritrea, Cuba, or North Korea isn't very surprising or has any geopolitical impact. Article quality is also poor. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose So Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and China can now discuss... counterterrorism and cybersecurity. This is literally the most pointless Organization I’ve ever seen and has zero economic or military requirements to join; posting a new addition to SAARC or ASEAN would be more worthwhile. AryKun (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis of diversity of coverage. Wikipedia is perfectly positioned to offer a broader perspective than the mainstream media that it's writers and reders consume normlly. It's also notable per above. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vince Tobin

 * Oppose Orange tag needs to be fixed. The sections "College coaching career", "Pre-NFL coaching" and "NFL coaching" are all completely uncited. TwistedAxe   [contact]  11:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, most of the information in the article is unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Too much footnote-free prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Léon Gautier (soldier)

 * Oppose for now, as the article quality needs expansion. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on Merit, Oppose on Quality - This is very notable for RD, and is definitely RD worthy, however, the article is still a stub and will need to be expanded a lot.Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Hate to have to oppose this but the article is a stub. Very sad that the last French D-Day veteran has left us. TwistedAxe   [contact]  11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Way too short. If only someone can translate the French wikibio to add some meat to the English wikibio within the next few hours... --PFHLai (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to expand it as best as I could. Could you let me know if it's long enough now? Thanks! <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 20:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 400+ is indeed long enough. Thanks for the expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yan Mingfu

 * Support Article looks okay to be ITNRD. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Wodié

 * Weak support Article is barely OK to be ITNRD I'd say, but needs a lot of work and cleaning up. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there anything holding this article back from being posted? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure how I haven't gotten to this yet. Plenty of sources and length gives this my seal of approval. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cecil Exum

 * Support He's acutally a naturalized Australian. Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited article. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sudakshina Sarma

 * Support Quality is okay for ITNRD. Could use more ref work but it's okay in its current status. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of editors’ eyes on this one? Ktin (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article body does not have much more additional depth than the introduction; one sentence states "In a career spanning over seven decades, Sarma recorded songs in a variety of genres across Assamese music spanning both classical and modern including Borgeet, Kamrupi Lokgeet, and Goalpariya Lokogeet" without much elaboration, aside from a couple sentences mostly focusing on her singing career when she was a girl.  Spencer T• C 03:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything specific that you are looking for? Might be able to add over the weekend -- but need to know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer -- Expanded further. With this I believe this one should be ready for mainpage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Improved compared to prior; meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in reasonable shape for posting to ITNRD., happy to help expand as well but I support posting in its current state. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Baden-Powell

 * Oppose Article needs lots of sourcing work before it can be posted to the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fakescientist. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I added some sourcing and improved the existing ones a bit. I still can't find a source which confirms the lodges they were a part of, so if someone else with knowledge on scouting wants to take a look I'd appreciate it. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Deauthorized - It's not someone with a knowledge of just Scouting you need there. It's someone with a knowledge of both Scouting AND lodges. Such people are quite rare. I know that to those involved in freemasonry and similar movements, such things are very important, but in the modern day, they are quite obscure. Removing such content from the article would do little harm, and have the article better follow our rules. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed that part for now, though I was hesitant at first. I wouldn't oppose it being re-implemented if a source can be found proving said sentence. Thanks. Deauthorized. (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems like most of the awards need a reference. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Jenin incursion

 * Oppose While I'm sympathetic, Israeli atrocities are a "day that ends in Y" occurrence.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't anything rare. TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I learned yesturday, stuff like this happens all the time, so this really isn't really ITN-worthy. Attacks like this occur on a almost daily basis in Israel/Palestine. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support People that are (semi-reflexively) saying this is a normal occurrence are jumping the gun. Every article has stated that this is the biggest military operation in a Palestinian city since the Second Intifada, with over a thousand troops deployed. As this is clearly a major escalation, and not a routine ambush or attack by the IDF, this is clearly a significant event. However the article needs some fixing before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 19:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Sadly not unusual for the region. The Kip (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lawrence Turman

 * Oppose Orange tag and lots of citation issues. Needs ref work before it's ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment  I’ve done some work to improve the sourcing but there are still 2 cn tags left. If anyone else wants to have a go, feel free. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Filmography completely uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Victoria Amelina

 * Support Article's sourcing and depth is good enough. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's is good enough. Fahads1982 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support if two sentences had a ref. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Gerda, please remember to include a formal support or oppose (wait and comment are also options depending on the situation) in your !vote, per Voicing an opinion on an item. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you instead please find a ref for the quote, and her children's book? - This is ITN, where everything has to be referenced, and quotes always need a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, your points are valid. I just wanted to inform you of the rule, don’t take it too seriously. Anyways, I’ve added a source for the children’s book now. Scientia potentia est,  -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: the quote is gone, the fact is reference. Leaves only one book in need of a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. While your comment is generally accurate, ITN is not a vote per se, so having bolded supports/opposes is less important than the quality of the comment. When reviewing nominations, the admins will have enough experience to know how to interpret Gerda's comment. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the feedback. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very sad news. I support this nomination. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Really sad. Article looks fine for ITNRD. Marking this as ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Atricle's good enough for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed ready. Bibliography is uncited. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have added references for the missing section within the bibliography. Victoria Amelina's death has been covered in various media outlets globally- definitely notable and should be posted. Looks ready for posting now. Schwinnspeed (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - good work everyone. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yan Mingfu

 * Support Article looks okay to be ITNRD. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Wodié

 * Weak support Article is barely OK to be ITNRD I'd say, but needs a lot of work and cleaning up. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there anything holding this article back from being posted? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure how I haven't gotten to this yet. Plenty of sources and length gives this my seal of approval. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cecil Exum

 * Support He's acutally a naturalized Australian. Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited article. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sudakshina Sarma

 * Support Quality is okay for ITNRD. Could use more ref work but it's okay in its current status. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of editors’ eyes on this one? Ktin (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article body does not have much more additional depth than the introduction; one sentence states "In a career spanning over seven decades, Sarma recorded songs in a variety of genres across Assamese music spanning both classical and modern including Borgeet, Kamrupi Lokgeet, and Goalpariya Lokogeet" without much elaboration, aside from a couple sentences mostly focusing on her singing career when she was a girl.  Spencer T• C 03:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything specific that you are looking for? Might be able to add over the weekend -- but need to know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer -- Expanded further. With this I believe this one should be ready for mainpage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Improved compared to prior; meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in reasonable shape for posting to ITNRD., happy to help expand as well but I support posting in its current state. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Baden-Powell

 * Oppose Article needs lots of sourcing work before it can be posted to the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 05:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fakescientist. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I added some sourcing and improved the existing ones a bit. I still can't find a source which confirms the lodges they were a part of, so if someone else with knowledge on scouting wants to take a look I'd appreciate it. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Deauthorized - It's not someone with a knowledge of just Scouting you need there. It's someone with a knowledge of both Scouting AND lodges. Such people are quite rare. I know that to those involved in freemasonry and similar movements, such things are very important, but in the modern day, they are quite obscure. Removing such content from the article would do little harm, and have the article better follow our rules. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed that part for now, though I was hesitant at first. I wouldn't oppose it being re-implemented if a source can be found proving said sentence. Thanks. Deauthorized. (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems like most of the awards need a reference. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Jenin incursion

 * Oppose While I'm sympathetic, Israeli atrocities are a "day that ends in Y" occurrence.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't anything rare. TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I learned yesturday, stuff like this happens all the time, so this really isn't really ITN-worthy. Attacks like this occur on a almost daily basis in Israel/Palestine. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support People that are (semi-reflexively) saying this is a normal occurrence are jumping the gun. Every article has stated that this is the biggest military operation in a Palestinian city since the Second Intifada, with over a thousand troops deployed. As this is clearly a major escalation, and not a routine ambush or attack by the IDF, this is clearly a significant event. However the article needs some fixing before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 19:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Sadly not unusual for the region. The Kip (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lawrence Turman

 * Oppose Orange tag and lots of citation issues. Needs ref work before it's ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment  I’ve done some work to improve the sourcing but there are still 2 cn tags left. If anyone else wants to have a go, feel free. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Filmography completely uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Victoria Amelina

 * Support Article's sourcing and depth is good enough. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's is good enough. Fahads1982 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support if two sentences had a ref. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Gerda, please remember to include a formal support or oppose (wait and comment are also options depending on the situation) in your !vote, per Voicing an opinion on an item. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you instead please find a ref for the quote, and her children's book? - This is ITN, where everything has to be referenced, and quotes always need a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, your points are valid. I just wanted to inform you of the rule, don’t take it too seriously. Anyways, I’ve added a source for the children’s book now. Scientia potentia est,  -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: the quote is gone, the fact is reference. Leaves only one book in need of a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. While your comment is generally accurate, ITN is not a vote per se, so having bolded supports/opposes is less important than the quality of the comment. When reviewing nominations, the admins will have enough experience to know how to interpret Gerda's comment. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the feedback. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very sad news. I support this nomination. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Really sad. Article looks fine for ITNRD. Marking this as ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Atricle's good enough for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed ready. Bibliography is uncited. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have added references for the missing section within the bibliography. Victoria Amelina's death has been covered in various media outlets globally- definitely notable and should be posted. Looks ready for posting now. Schwinnspeed (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - good work everyone. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syaukat Banjaransari

 * Support Article is fine, not good, but fine, in depth and sourcing. No major quality issues. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article has sufficient quality for RD. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Fixed the birth & death date at the top which wasn't written for some reason. Other than that, article looks ok. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: Whose namecard listed the occupation as a painter? Who was involved in film-making? Kardono or Syaukat? I don't know the Indonesian language, so, sorry, I can't things using the existing refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've fixed the issue. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing them. -- PFHLai (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a long list of films in the filmography, and the article text says only that he "was also involved in filmmaking and had participated in several films." In what way? Art design? Direction of some sort? Given the long list is there without much context, a sentence or two clarifying his role would be useful.  Spencer T• C 03:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see much wrong and see no reason why this hasn't been posted yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be good enough in terms of details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Post archiving posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Baltimore shooting

 * Oppose and close Knowing the consensus in Candidates, this nomination is not going anywhere. Shootings in the U.S. are routine and not particularly noticeable or noteworthy outside the country's borders. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per @Alsoriano97 —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a mass shooting a day, keeps the doctor busy. Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close Mass shootings in the United States occur more frequently than your average person bathes . Obviously very different things, but the first shower was probably a notable moment in civilisation, like the first US mass shooting. Subsequent ones would be more notable if they hadn't become so routine. We're even at the point where you couldn't put "US gun violence epidemic" or something in the ongoing line because the prevalence of mass shootings seems so much a part of life, the overwhelming number of shootings itself is no longer news. I would love to one day be able to post an ITN item of the US doing something about it. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Minnie Bruce Pratt

 * Support Article quality looks satisfactory for RD. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-sourced article. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. I've commented out two unsourced awards. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Better sources are needed to replace or support iMDb and the subject's own website used as references in this wikibio. Also, the intro mentions the subject's retirement from Syracuse U, but the professional career section has no mention that she has even worked there. Please elaborate in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Kerslake, Baron Kerslake

 * Support Fixed the article and added a "Death" section. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Further proof that "article quality" is really about formatting puffery. Elsewhere, "Death" sections are discouraged when there's nothing out the ordinary to be said about the person's death. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere requires different things. And it's not just article quality. Updating is also needed. It's RD here. So, death ought to be added in there. It would be nice if things can be elaborated, though. -- PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Formatting puffery"? Have you looked at those failed noms? -- PFHLai (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per notability : Most likely a lot of people haven’t even heard of the man. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:88A5:9417:E505:FC25 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the bottom of the nomination, and you'll see relevance doesn't matter. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.". TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking ready, will post it today if nobody does before me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meg Johnson

 * Oppose Orange tag needs to be fixed. Will support when its ready. Support Orange tag has been resolved and article is of okay quality. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality seems good enough for RD now since the orange tag has been resolved. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RD: Qadri Abu Bakr

 * Oppose Early-life section is entirely unsourced. Once fixed I'll support. Support Looks ready now. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve added a source for the early life section. The article is a bit short but otherwise fine for posting. Scientia potentia est, -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's a stub article so it is not ready yet. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Only 161 words of prose? Nothing else to write about the subject? Please EXPAND this wikibio. Thank you.--PFHLai (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Expanded the lead. Ainty Painty (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The intro is where highlights and summaries go, details and footnotes should be in the body or main prose. And, regarding article length, while DYK expects 300 words, ITN-RD should not require less. --PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Kenya truck crash

 * Support - pending article expansion. I created the article, though I got err... sidetracked, but I'll attempt to expand the article beyond stub level. - Knightoftheswords  (Talk · Contribs) 14:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notability, oppose on quality. Enough deaths/injuries for notability in my opinion and we also posted the Carberry highway collision (with less deaths) so there’s precedent. Article is stubby though. MonarchOfTerror (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality Article needs work, it's too stubby in its current form. However, its notable enough to be mentioned due to the deaths being in the double digits. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Traffic accidents are common in Kenya and other African countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the talk page for this article, would you state the same if it occured in a western country? - Knightoftheswords  (Talk · Contribs) 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We should have a high threshold for traffic accidents as they are commonplace everywhere. For example, just now in the UK a major motorway will be closed for much of the day after the spectacular crash of a milk tanker.  It's getting plenty of headlines – "M6 gridlocked after milk tanker flips over central reservation in horror crash" – but it's still just a classic WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this would pass such a threshold as there are 49 dead. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a news story with no broader significance. Also, we really need to decide what sort of scope we're looking for when posting items. It doesn't make any sense to oppose something because it only affects a few million people in one country, but then to turn around and support something that only affects a few hundred people in one city. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any sense to oppose something because it only affects a few million people in one country, but then to turn around and support something that only affects a few hundred people in one city. This is unavoidable as comparing one type of news story to a different type of news story is always an apples to oranges comparison. Every political decision in any large country affects millions of people, but a historic natural disaster may only have a double or triple digit death toll. This doesn't make the former more blurbworthy than the latter. <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> 💙 22:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, it might mean the natural disaster isn't that "historic" after all. There's a bad habit on Wikipedia of confusing "interesting thing that happened" with "thing that has lasting historic significance". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principal, oppose on quality - that's a huge death toll period, but it's especially high for a road accident. No shot we'd oppose this on notability if this happened a little closer to home. But it's not ready to post when the article consists of mere sentences and not paragraphs. <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> 💙 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Home? My home is Australia. Yours? This is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I know you've got a years long record of pouncing on every opportunity to bring up American bias, but by "Home" I obviously meant "the west", not the United States. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? English is one of Kenya's two official languages. Millions of Kenyans use English Language Wikipedia. Is is just as much home to them as it is to you. I don't care whether you meant the USA or the west, whatever that is, but "home" showed an unhealthy parochialism. An "us or them" mentality. Very unhealthy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My goodness, HiLo. I know Kenya is an English-speaking nation, I'm talking about the types of countries most ITN/C editors are from. I know what countries the regulars here are from. (see also: idiom "close to home") I know most of us are British or Americans, and I know that you know that, too, as you never miss an opportunity to remind us. But in this case, I was making a point about systemic bias. You'd agree with what I said had you not gotten ahead of yourself and been needlessly aggressive. Use your context clues the next time. This is unproductive and nonsensical. <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> 💙 04:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not very good at saying "I was wrong", are you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unfortunately, Traffic accidents are common in countries like Kenya, and we usually don't post about car accidents. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Confounding how the Carberry highway collision sailed through, yet more significant crash events are so heavily opposed. But no, no bias at all. Right. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This is not a notable event in Kenya. Alex-h (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Traffic accidents are routine. Not global headline news.  Sandstein   15:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A uncommon but not unusual road accident that likely fails NEVENT for notability. --M asem (t) 15:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted the much, much smaller Carberry highway collision where only 16 people were killed last month. The big difference is that were all white people. Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Given we post much smaller vehicle crashes when the dead people are white, it would be highly prejudicial to not post this; quality notwithstanding. Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew D. Let the nom return to his Gronk.  SN54129  — Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 03 July 2023 (UTC) Support in principle per Nfitz. IMO article is also ready to post now, it has been updated by a lot of different people, I'm not sure how to credit that. @MonarchOfTerror @Twistedaxe @Vanilla Wizard do you agree? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to the editors who worked to bring it up to shape! I retract my opposition. Support on quality. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work by the editors! Article looks good enough now. Support on quality given. Scientia potentia est,  -Monarch OfTerror  (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment in line with English Grammar I believe it should be "kills 49 and injures 30 others" for parallel construction. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blaylockjam10 has corrected this with their update to the blurb. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support 52 deaths is a lot of deaths & it seems like the article's quality is good enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unarchived from July 1 as we have not come to a decision yet and this is newer than the China explosion. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is currently up for WP:AfD, and is thus ineligible to appear on the Main Page until the discussion is closed. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say just post it but it is ineligible being at AfD. It's stale as soon as one more blurb is posted. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 2. It's also newer than Wagner. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Tompkins

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Buldhana bus accident

 * Oppose on quality as it’s a stub. Lean support on notability. The Kip (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In India, car accidents like this is very common, and unfortunately, it is not ITN-worthy because of how common car accidents like this has occurred in India. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless death toll rises per Editor 5426387. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems like a sad but typical type of road accident that would fail NEVENT for notability. --M asem (t) 15:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. I'm not convinced this passes our notability guidelines. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 04:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dilano van 't Hoff

 * Support Well-referenced article, and quite frankly a tragic loss at 18 years old. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Euclid launch

 * Support - More scopes in the infrared zone the better! (though this is not quite full IR range, still cool!). Euclid could lead to some very promising insights into Dark Matter!. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - could lead to major insightful discoveries concerning dark matter, dark energy, and the very nature of the universe. - Knightoftheswords  (Talk · Contribs) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment on quality; quite a few uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Absolutely. Big news in the astronomy field. TwistedAxe   [contact]  20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Untagging ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per KOTS This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support big news in the Astronomy field, could now study dark matter further. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Euclid_(spacecraft) needs quite a bit of referencing.  Spencer T• C 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If and then when we get these cool new discoveries, we should post them. A mission doesn't guarantee said discoveries. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When the James Webb was launched, we immediately posted it on ITN. Same thing goes for the Mars rovers, even though they aren't telescopes. Launching a space telescope doesn't just happen everyday; if the Hubble was to be launched today, I'd imagine alot of people supporting. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Consensus can change. And we can't just compare every launch as the same. The reality is there is no guarantee of results from this mission compared to certain other ones. For example, the Rovers were clearly going to generate new responses just by virtue of the nature of their mission. For all we know this telescope might not find anything new out. What's the issue with waiting to see if this mission holds as significant? DarkSide830 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that something of this nature just doesn't happen everyday. Your exact argument can be applied for the James Webb too. Just because of the fact that James Webb didn't guarantee anything new, it still didn't stop people from wanting to post it on ITN. It was still huge news because its a telescope being launched to study something. Also...this telescope is one of very, very few even being sent out whose primary goal is actually to study dark energy & dark matter. We know very little about those two things, so even if this mission doesn't return anything new or something we don't know, it's still worth to mention because of how huge potential this has. I could absolutely understand if someone was to oppose this on quality (as some people have already done) due to uncited text, but notability shouldn't really be questioned here due to those things. However, you're always free to voice your own opinion of course regarding this matter, but hopefully you take those things also into consideration. TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Man bites dog happens every day, even if not the same man biting the same dog. I fail to see the issue with waiting to see if there are any lasting impacts of said bite. And, respectfully, who cares if it's goal is special? It can end up being a failure and society could learn jack in the end. Potential discoveries are CRYSTAL. Don't get me wrong, the implications of this mission are cool, but what is really cool is results. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Substantial portion of the article is uncited factual statements subject to WP:LIKELY. I'll note that none of the supports mentions quality of the article, which is becoming a trend at ITNC.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now Support on quality I'm neutral on timing, though I think the consensus is clearly in favor there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality We posted both when James Webb was launched and when we had its first released images (as a sign of first light). Same would seem to apply here. Only issue is tons of unsourced material in the article. --M asem (t) 13:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Never heard of this. Doesn't appear to be ITN/R. Dark energy might mean something to physicists or astronomers, but I'm not yet convinced of the significance or impact that this has to humanity on any scientific or social level. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you've not heard of this. It's been in the news in the last day or two. It's literally on page 2 of today's local paper here - in another country (and they don't put any stories on page 1 on Sundays). The issue here is quality. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, most of these launches - many of which posted - will not have a large impact (if any) on the average person, yet they sail through. I'm not sure why we insist on posting what is, effectively interesting news that we have no clue on the real impact of. Heck, these fatal crashes and boast sinkings clearly have an impact on a number of individuals, yet get beat down as not important. And why should coverage dictate significance? The news reports on what people WANT to read. We need not adhere to a notability standard that is defined by what stories make a publication the most money. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the following day (Monday) there's a half-page article in Canada's largest national newspaper. So major coverage in both the largest local and largest national papers. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't show up in my newspaper or on any of my news feeds, which I follow a fair amount and use as a barometer for newsworthiness and depth of coverage. Granted, it may very well be that this story has different peaks of newsworthiness, but with as many launches as we are having nowadays, I'd expect this to stand out quite a bit if it's a big deal. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if you look at Cosmic_Vision it is ESA's *first* medium-class mission, the equivalent of NASA's Discovery Program. Unless I am missing something, in hindsight, pretty much all of those Discovery missions should have been posted on ITN considering what they did for space telescope/missions discoveries.  The precursor to Cosmic Vision, the Horizon 2000, also had very high-profile missions, so no reason to doubt this launch will also be one of the major scientific missions sent into space. The problem with these kind of missions is that after launch, most news are incremental in impact, so they rarely get noticed by ITN later on.  ITN currently has a fetish for posting killings and deaths/murders, and political ticker-news, but somehow seems to have had a hard time accepting scientific/encyclopedic stories.  24.101.0.132 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs ref improvement per Black Kite, Masem, GreatCaesarsGhost. - Indefensible (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the technical text has primary references now. Any specifics that still need references? 24.101.0.132 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I've added a few CN tags to the last section.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support once quality issues are resolved. Continuing mainstream coverage. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article seems good enough and this is surely notable.
 * Aure entuluva (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Still CN tagged. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 04:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the CN tags. 207.182.67.23 (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple tagged sourcing issues at —Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)