Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2024

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

(Posted) RD: Hugh Aldons
Sri Lankan sportsman who has played field hockey. rugby union and cricket for Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although it is sourced, the article is way too short at the moment and needs expansion. Support. Changing to support as the article structure looks slightly better than before. Cheers. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support IMO meets bare minimum requirement.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per PoP but an infobox would be nice.  Bremps  ...  23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is short and good enough for RD. The birthdate is unsourced though. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Nadim Mostafa
Bangladeshi BNP politician. Exact DOB needs to be nailed down. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment the article seems to rely heavily on just one news website, needs other sources than that site.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: R. Sampanthan
Sri Lankan politician. Been in the parliament for 6 terms, and as opposition leader for 1 term. Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Blurb is a bit much for a Leader of the Opposition.  Bremps  ...  02:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He is one of the most important political figures in the country. Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 02:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, was. So far, his article doesn't seem to reflect that he was a supposedly transformative figure, but it might just be due to omissions.  Bremps  ...  03:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, leading the opposition in parliament for a term isn't really blurb-worthy. If a blurb has to be chosen, altblurb 3 is the most concise and fluff-free. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Nowhere close to the expected type of coverage/content to describe being a "great figure" in Sri Lanka politics. Perhaps important being the opposition leader, but that doesn't equate to "great". --M asem (t) 03:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD The prose and citations are there for an RD mention; the very few uncited statements are not controversial. A blurb is obviously not going to happen and is not worth discussing. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD article is good enough to be posted in the RD, but being an leader of opposition is not a blurb worthy position.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - I don't think we'd generally consider a blurb for a politician who had never actually led a nation or government from any country. I wouldn't, at least. Politics is an important field, as I often say, but this isn't being at the top of it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Blurb is out of the question but support RD. Let's focus on article quality from here on out.  Bremps  ...  03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb  With all due respect, subject simply does not reach the significance for a death blurb. Article looks good for RD, though. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a serving head of state or government. Manner of death not notable. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a political figure that we blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Per most of the above. A politician who led the opposition party is not notable enough for a blurb. I will support it being in the RD though. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD Stephen 22:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martti Wallén
Finnish bass opera singer who was engaged in Finland, Sweden (for the longest time) and Germany, and died in Spain, where the obits come from, not noticed by the mainstream reports, so I'm late again, sorry. He performed in a world premiere in Los Angeles that was meant to be in Helsinki, DYK? The article was mostly there, even the references, but they were not used inline much. It was funny to learn opera titles in Swedish - many of those I couldn't recognize ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mauritanian presidential election

 * Comment ITN/R surely? Added image for consideration. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically it isn't, as ITNELECTIONS only lists changes in the holder of office as ITNR, whereas this is a reelection. However, it should be ITNR, and there is ongoing dicsussion on how we should amend ITNELECTIONS. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment although I like tables, it needs more prose. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Borno State bombings
Article will need work. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article needs serious work before being front page ready This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality death toll is quite high but article as of now has only 6 sources and is 276 words long.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article doesn't mention what group (if any) the attackers were a part of, and it is currently too barebones to be posted to the main page. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Who, what, where, when, why and how? What, where, when and how are answered, leaving who and why (though we have a pretty good guess). Ping me if both are answered, if so, I'll support this being posted as this is a major attack.  Bremps  ...  02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Pål Enger
Norwegian footballer and art thief (stole the The Scream!). Will not be posted in current state, needs lots of citations if anyone wants to tackle. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the nominator said it is not in a good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are 8 footnotes at the end of the first sentence, and 3 for the final two sentences, but zero footnotes for all the text in between. Please add more REFs in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Princess Lalla Latifa Amahzoune
princess widow of King Hassan II, mother of the current King of Morocco Mohammed VI. Article is short (she had a very discreet role and it seems that little is known about her), but almost ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is that lead image, it looks like some found footage creepy pasta. More recent and quality image would be better PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is no better photo available. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The copyright information may be inaccurate.  Bremps  ...  18:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This website gives a better picture, though I am not sure what the copyright situation of it is. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly Support I don't have a problem with a creepy video still for an obscure quasiroyal figure, given the state of VHS recording even in Denmark at the time, but a section called Biography within a biography makes me strangely uneasy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article is okay enough to be posted, but photo is actually weird but the photo on her husband's page is even more weirder,  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready for the front page. I tried following note 1, and it appears to be an OR justification of some of the terminology used elsewhere in that paragraph. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot say that the article is not ready because of an inconsistency in the note. If you don't think it's appropriate, it's deleted (it doesn't actually contribute anything). For the rest, what assessment do you make? _-_Alsor (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup final
14.139.34.101 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is good, well written and has all the details. Must be on the ITN. AnalyserOP (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. ITNR. Article looks good. Good to go to mainpage. Ktin (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article seems well-cited (I spotted two CN tags, but they were for "self-evident" items that don't need an explicit single source) And there seems to be sufficient prose for each section. Overall rather well-done; good to see that much attention quickly: the number one cause of ITN/R sports stories going unposted is usually because the article remains a mess of tables with no cited prose. Good job on the editors to get this past that. Nottheking (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural support rules require it. Sports. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support prose looks good. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The page is of sufficient quality to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is in a good shape but I suggest we should picture player of the series (in this case Jasprit Bumrah) rather than player of the match.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Licensing info for the image on the page for the cup is a bit fishy.  Bremps  ...  05:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article has been further expanded and all the cn tags have been replaced with references. --Abishe (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support As per the comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E2:102C:CDD8:2D34:E8FC:93F8:5F9F (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin Attention Needed. Tagging, this has been ready for posting for some time now. Please can you help take a look and post. Ktin (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Audrey Flack
Photorealist. (With Mary Cassatt, among first two women added to Janson's History of Art.) Article is Start class but seems to be cited. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, NYT error. Smithsonian says she was one of three living women added to Janson 3rd edition. Unbelievably, that was in 1986. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is sourced and is in a reasonable shape. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 03:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lando Bartolini
Italian tenor of international fame, had a stub of an article with 2 tags. There's still more in Italian if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. It has also been expanded. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Good expansion. I do wish there was a little more on his impact/legacy and reviews or criticism of his work (although what I found was mostly negative). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 17:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohamed Osman Jawari
Speaker of the Federal Parliament of Somalia and briefly acting President of Somalia --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Well sourced, looks good. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 08:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Marking ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please post,  Bremps  ...  18:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I cannot get to source #3, which is extensively used throughout the article. Could someone who can get to that source please archive it (e.g. to the Wayback Machine)? In addition, the date of birth is unreferenced.  Schwede 66  19:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this source look good enough for a date of birth?  Bremps  ...  03:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66, I have fixed the archived link and provided a source for the DOB. Please let me know if there are any more concerns. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 03:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  04:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Orlando Cepeda
Natg 19 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Death is reliably sourced. Article is reasonably complete and well-referenced, with no major issues apparent, tagged, or mentioned on the talk page. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready, I CN tagged some the areas needing an inline citation -- usually when there was not a source after a couple of sentences. I do not doubt they are the same citations used elsewhere in the same section, but lots of factual claims being made without an inline follow up. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose several cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Mongolian parliamentary election
Article has a few outstanding tags. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article could use some improvement but is good enough for now. Proposed altblurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article should be of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The quality issues with the article have now been resolved, but we should wait until the full results are released. The article says: "The full official results will be officially presented by GEC within 14 days." so we should just renominate when they do get released. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose due to a whole paragraph of unsourced information in the background section. Also, the lead of the article only states the preliminary results, so we may want to wait until the final results come out. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support unless it's been changed by now, but I don't see an unsourced background section paragraph, the article looks good. Scu ba (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Scu ba, see the end of the first and second paragraphs of the background section. The second paragraph is the one with no sources. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see it now, looks like it was initially added in the .ru version which was then copied and translated to the .en version 01:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are two orange tags that needs to be resolved.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The tables in the "Lawmakers not standing for re-election" and "Incumbents who lost re-election" sections are unsourced. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are attached now. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Martin Mull
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready. Most of the Acting section is unsourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 08:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when article is ready. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, striking support (pls ping me if situation changes). Article is overrun by stingy fan editing. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Multiple paragraphs with zero footnotes. Filmography and Discography sections are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose several paragraphs without footnotes.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Landry Nguémo

 * Oppose outstanding amount of cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Added cn tags. Early career and time at Nancy is very undercited. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Kinky Friedman
American musician, satirist, and politician. Has orange banner, needs some more sources. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose discography and Writing career sections are almost entirely unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose overreliance on one and two sentence paragraphs. Also what PrinceofPunjab said.  Bremps  ...  06:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Sergei Berezin
Russian professional ice hockey player. Pretty good shape. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support looks alright to me and before anyone say that Career statistics section is unsourced, the source is in the external link section.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The infobox and stats table indicate that the subject represented his country on multiple occasions, but the prose lack materials on his international career. This gap in coverage needs to be filled. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jackie Clarkson
American politician: Louisiana House of Representatives and New Orleans City Council. Could do with a few more citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait some paragraphs end without any footnotes.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PrinceofPunjab, take a look now. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ready now.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 06:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Political section is mostly election results as well as 2 sentences about an emails controversy; what else did Clarkson achieve or advocate for while in elected positions?  Spencer T• C 04:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Bolivian coup attempt

 * Support on notability, but Zúñiga's article is still a one-sentence stub for now. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is already a little bit longer now, although it can still very much be improved. Given the importance and recency of the situation, it should be okay for posting. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, I wonder where this one goes. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - it has a dozenWP:RS citations now. It's still a work in progress, but it's only a matter of time before this gets to the front page. A short amount of time, if you ask me. Kire1975 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, notable and the article seems good Personisinsterest (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, if leaning towards wait. The big question for that is the disposition/fate of Luis Arce, which so far no news seems to have reported. (e.g, was he not there? Did he escape? Did the coup capture him?) I suspect that we'll get an answer on that within a few hours anyway. As long as the articles remain as decently-cited as they are now, it should be good to post. Nottheking (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like the coup failed. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 22:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a classic WAIT. If sucessful, then yes to posting. If it all fizzles out in a few hours with no or minimal loss of lives and the arrest of the soliders etc., then that's not something we normally (or should) post. -- KTC (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should post it in any case, the event already gained traction. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Let's see if something worth a blurb is actually happening. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but Wait to see if it is successful per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Troops have pulled out, so it likely failed, but it is still a notable event. If this happened in a similarly-sized country in Europe, it would absolutely have been posted. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Military coups are not common in Europe. In South America the record is somewhat different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The long term historical record may be, but since the CIA stopped doing that sort of thing, they are rare in South America now too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * support on notability coups a rare thing nowadays Kasperquickly (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really.  Bremps  ...  19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to bludgeon my point, but there were two coups in 2022, one foiled plot in 2023, another foiled one in 2024, and another brewing on the horizon in Burkina Faso alone. Not to mention Niger, Tunisia, Chad, etc. There's a coup epidemic.  Bremps  ...  21:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong continent. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Kasperquickly should have specified that they meant only South American coups, then. They spoke about coups generally.  Bremps  ...  07:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. There's enough unqualified support here for a consensus and quality seems OK now. Only the coup article bolded though, not the BLP per usual convention. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing development. Add to blurb if confirmed, please.  Bremps  ...  04:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bakhyt Kenjeev
A renowned Kazakh-born Russian poet, a founding member of the "Moscow Time" group of Soviet underground poets. Recipient of several notable Russian literary prizes, said to have been nominated for the Nobel prize.


 * Not Ready. Stubby, the usual problem, and several tags needs to be resolved. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready Works section needs more souces.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready same issue still lingers.  Bremps  ...  02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've added missing references and ISBN's. Should be good now. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment looks better. Lot of items listed in Russian with no translation though. @PrinceofPunjab, @Bremps, and @Midori No Sora. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 04:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) ICC issues arrest warrants for Russia's Shoigu and Gerasimov
Ainty Painty (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - total of one sentence in the entire bolded article referencing the news item. Not to get WP:CRYSTALBALL, but this is a symbolic move that likely will not have many consequences, similar to Putin's arrest warrant (other than restricting travel). In particular, the NYT article states, "That makes it highly unlikely that Mr. Shoigu and General Gerasimov will be taken into custody in the foreseeable future". Also covered by the Ongoing section; could be considered part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Finally, another article for the arrest warrants does not yet exist (as exists at International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova), and including that article in the blurb, or at least mentioning the subjects of the warrants, would be more appropriate. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The last time ITN was fooled into posting something like this, the most significant consequence was Main Page readers having to look at Putin smiling at them for an unreasonably (and perhaps uncomfortably) long time; I don't know what these guys look like, but I'm pretty anyone smiling in an official portrait is the entirely wrong look for this harmless-yet-ill-intended sort of news. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Putin was one thing as a sitting head of state, this is comparatively far less important. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Putin story was notable as it was the head of the state but Army chief is not that notable.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As PrinceOfPunjab says, Putin was worth posting as head of state, but this is a subsidiary matter and not suitable for ITN. It very much falls under Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 NEET controversy
Needs better blurb. Rushtheeditor(talk) 00:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing in the article explains why it should be feature on the main page. LiamKorda 04:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure if this really reaches the notability standard for ITN. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not something significant enough to be featured in the ITN. Close it under WP:SNOW.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support At this time of year, the lives of millions of students and their families around the world are dominated by such high-stakes examinations. This is clearly more significant than local sporting events, say, and so it's good to run a relevant item. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Support, but the blurb could be clearer, and should target the correct article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh what a mess. I think the main difficulty here is that there's no specific date tied to when this controversy began. Moreover, the article doesn't currently mention any real protests. I think mass protests would be a reasonable date to blurb this, but otherwise the current system of ITN is not really designed for slowly-increasing controversies. Article looks good tho, so I am open for improved blurb ideas. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Paper leaks and student protests are routine and recurring events in India. These have no large significance outside the country. — hako9 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fraudulent issues in the Indian education system are regular. This one has a more coverage than usual but it's still not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: José Antonio Urtiaga

 * Support a little bit short but long enough and nicely cited. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Seems like everything is sourced. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bill Cobbs
Article needs to be improved before posting. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose orange tag and is in need of more sourcing.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Chang'e 6 return
We did post when it arrived at the moon, and per ITNR, its successful return is also there. Unfortunately, I don't know how much more than a sentence update (both lede and body) can be made here, given that it is China and news from there tends to be iffy. There definitely needs to be a better update before posting. --M asem (t) 04:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per nom, can't see how the realization of what was always supposed to happen on this moonrock-collecting mission gets any bigger or better than this. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom, as well as the fact we previously blurbed it anyways. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose inasmuch as it was already posted when it landed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The composition of the far side is different and so return of these samples is significant. As this is the main point of the mission and it's ITN/R, we should note its success.  Note also that the Starliner is not going so well and so such success cannot be taken for granted.  And adding more sentences to the article will be easy – just give me a moment. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It is not everyday that satellites that reached moon's surface also return back to earth.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 09:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support They literally got a moon rock that’s pretty important Personisinsterest (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's good news, but we already ran with the moon landing as the major event of this mission, and I don't think we need this as well. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it had been optimal if we had only blurbed this article upon Chang'e's return, and not on landing. Then we would've had the best of both worlds. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would have been a gamble, though, since there's no guarantee a mission will ever complete all its objectives. Moonreach (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, new frontier in science and a nice break from bad news. I don't think it's newsworthy enough to give it the picture slot too, though. - Moonreach (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Return of a spacecraft is not big news and we already blurbed the landing on the far side of the moon. Natg 19 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already covered ITN, and this subsequent event appears to not meet the criteria outlined at ITNR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, an update to the status of an article about a notable topic of broad public interest. There's no rule that something can only ever be mentioned on ITN once and I don't see why that should be factored into the decision. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Thebiguglyalien, Moonreach, Andrew Davidson and the nominator. Big international news. Jusdafax (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Per most of the supports above. Being the first to return samples from the far side of the moon is highly significant. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 07:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already posted this, and not ITN/R. If and when there are humans landing on the moon and then returning again, that might be momentous enough to post twice. But this is more of an incremental achievement IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment removed from ITNR. ITNR does list "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" as suitable events, but that seems to only be referring to outgoing spacecraft. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, to lunar orbit and beyond very much sounds like it doesn't include Earth. :p Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Earth is beyond the path of lunar orbit. Otherwise we'd crash. The only question (which might not even matter) is whether we're in front of the moon or behind it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already posted at an earlier stage of the mission. Nigej (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. No rocks have been recovered from the moon since the Apollo and Luna missions in the 1970s, and they are exceedingly rare. This is the only sample return mission from a state other than USA or USSR. Polyamorph (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support These rocks are from the far side of the moon and as such are unique in the history of lunar exploration. Very important to cover it — Iadmc  ♫ talk  10:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Come on, first far-side moon rocks.  Bremps  ...  17:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Already posted this mission just a few weeks ago. Bluemarsman (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, the mission was not complete until this landing. Going to and picking up rocks from the far side of the Moon is one thing, getting those back to a predetermined Earth landing area finishes the historic mission with a success and a civilizational 'first'. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, first time scientists will have lunar materials retrieved from far side of moon. 2607:9880:2D28:108:11F9:25A0:FA7A:4630 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I’d call this consensus to post. Jusdafax (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't necessarily agree there's a strong consensus to post this, but nevertheless it's going to be stale in the next day or two so a decision should probably be made to close the discussion, regardless.

(Posted) RD: Sika Anoa‘i
American Samoan professional wrestler. WWE Hall of Fame. Needs some more citations (I have added some tags and the banner), but it seems people are updating the article. If you know who should be considered an updater, please add to nom. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose need for more citations as some sections are still unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notablity: Needs more citations and some sections are still unsourced. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Duke of New Gwynedd Recent deaths have no notability requirement. See the footer of the yellow box at the top of this section. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to put words into Duke's mouth, but I heard support on notability is just a polite euphemism for oppose here at ITN.  Bremps  ...  04:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support All cited now. I suppose a Photo RD is "asking too much". He was 79. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha! For real! This photo of Sika Anoa‘i is clickbait indeed! An attention grabber.  Surely the page views for his RD would go through the roof! Seriously though, hopefully the RD/photo option will be implemented someday …I hope so, as you may know, from the discussion on the Talk page that you recently participated in re: this RD/photo option. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and well sourced. Seems very notable— Iadmc  ♫ talk  14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Kenya protests
Article needs a significant rewrite. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1 - Focus on the main article. Highly significant event, article might need some rewriting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, highly significant, although article needs a bit of expansion if possible. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an embarrassment that the article on the attack is longer than the one on the buildings. And that the article on the buildings is longer than the one on the parliament itself.  Fine set of priorities we're encouraging here. —Cryptic 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Very significant Personisinsterest (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and possible POV issues. The details of the bill should be sourced to third parties, particularly claims that are not clearly part of the bill's language. M asem (t) 17:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongly support - Snipertron12   Talk  17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Highlighted vote.  Bremps  ...  22:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Best to bold that so no one overlooks it.  Bremps  ...  22:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb on basis of notability, but some expansion would be needed. A national parliament of a major African nation being set on fire is certainly noteworthy. International newspapers seem to be increasing their coverage of the event, so hopefully there will soon be more info to beef up the article.Khuft (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability: there's some things that still need citations though.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, per above. Update: just resolved the remainder of the CN tags on the article. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on quality at this time. Support on notability and should the article(s) improve. Kenya Finance Bill protests article needs some work. Some of the details are wrong and some are trivial. The causalities section contradicts the infobox. Parts of the lede are not addressed in the body, making some elements seem undue. 2024 Parliament of Kenya attack is sparse with details. Needs work IMO. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, Oppose on quality per all above. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per discussion above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. LiamKorda 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support attack article looks good now and protest was also quite significant.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 09:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - This is huge news. The death toll is now being reported as 13 by the BBC. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Article has been updated, should be sufficient for posting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 12:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think Kenya Finance Bill protests needs work, but 2024 Parliament of Kenya attack looks better (disclosure: I just marked the page as reviewed). I recommend a variation of the altblurb if it is posted. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted ALT1.  Schwede 66  02:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless the rioters/protestors are killing their own the security forces are behind the deaths. If/when confirmation comes, we should add that to the blurb instead of relying on passive voice.  Bremps  ...  22:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Mohamed Arif
Maldivian footballer. Death announced 25 Jun 2024. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in much better shape. Sharrdx (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, needs work. I have tagged what needs citations. Would you be able to tackle @MAL MALDIVE? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are some cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Julian Assange Released
Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event. — hako9 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Judge needs to approve of this. That's probably the better time to consider. He may be going right back into jail if the judge denies. --M asem (t) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose . The appropriate time to post this story would be if/when he actually gets out. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically he has already gotten out. He was released from the British prison on Monday afternoon and he's now going to the Northern Mariana Islands to plead guilty and get sentenced to time served. That hearing is at 7 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, less than 24 hours from now, which could be a good time to post a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable plan. Would temporarily atopping this section until that time be unusual, or would just removing it for now be preferred? Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is probably unnecessary, as the discussion would likely go on for that long in any case. BD2412  T 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added an alt blurb which is accurate even today as he was already released from the British prison, but the best time to post it would be when the U.S. judge actually approves the deal. And since that's supposed to happen within 24 hours, it should work out well. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's my bad. The blurb wording had be thinking otherwise. Probably should have taken a look for myself then. Thanks for the correction, I will strike my oppose and make it a support. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the chains of government have been broken Lukt64 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's neither a credible representation of how this happened, nor a meaningful reason to promote this story to the front page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment While his article is well sourced, it is overly detailed and has a lot of proseline. It would be nice if that could be cleaned up before tomorrow. --M asem (t) 02:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb which I just added, and post it when the U.S. judge formally approves the deal, which should happen around 7 p.m. ET on Tuesday. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb should use a photo of Assange, not protesters. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support posting after the judge in Saipan approves the deal. Noteworthy, he's already out of prison on his way to Saipan and will appear in about 23 hours. Can someone with more memory of ITN archives comment on whether it's normal to use plea bargain as the "outcome" in this sort of blurb, or perhaps should something like "after pleading guilty (to [charge/s])" be used instead? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until the judge approves, then Support, but with an up-to-date photo of Assange. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree. However nobody has uploaded a portrait photo of him newer than 2014 though. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's not great either. We can have a temporary picture (either the old photo or the protesters) and hope someone takes a good photo after his release and freely licenses it. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked flickr. The best images I found are:
 * 2021/2022 Time "Political Prisoner of the Year" cover. Not sure what the copyright status of Time covers are. Uploader claims CC-BY.
 * Painting by Anarchimedia, traced over a 2015 video conference photo.
 * 2023 Photo of Australian mural taken by Cory Doctorow. Could use some cropping. However, it's debated whether Australia has FoP for murals.
 * Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not true, Aaron Liu. There's a 2018 portrait photo on Commons, but it's not in focus.  Schwede 66  10:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66 Could you link it? Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I had been looking at another main page item before and then got confused; this wasn't about Assange.  Schwede 66  18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support but wait till judge approves it.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: a few CN tags in the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait. It's a bit more than a formality for this sort of thing. Wait at least until sentencing before putting this on the main page. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb as it more accurately describes what is happening. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb per above, definitely a major development and an internationally recognized headline. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait There seem to be at least 3 countries involved in this – Australia, UK and US. His article says that there are significant "legal issues in Australia" so what's their status now?  There seems to have been some change in the Australian government position as "The Australian government has been pushing hard for a couple of years now for this case to end".  Is this part of the AUKUS deal?   And the outcome still seems ongoing as it's conceivable that Assange might skip bail now as he's done it before.  I don't think we should focus on the plea bargain as many or most US cases end in some such deal.  As there seems to have been some sort of unusual multinational agreement, we should highlight that. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I may agree with the rest of your opinion, he won't be skipping bail because there is no bail. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources report that he was released from Belmarsh because the High Court in London granted him bail. See the BBC, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While it's a long-running and occasionally high-focus case, this ending to it is something of a damp squib, and I'm far from convinced it's ITN material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Criminal gets released from prison - so what. If he got exchanged through a major swap for a russian spy in our custody i'd maybe reconsider my vote, but this is just a minor thing in the grand scheme of things Kasperquickly (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...how the hell would Assange even factor into the US "swapping" him for a Russian spy. The US wanted him in prison, not out of prison and was trying to get him from the UK, not Russia. --110.141.157.50 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kasperquickly does seem to be having some difficulty telling countries apart - see below for where he seems to be confused between the USA, Iraq, and Russia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How would that make event more notable? BilboBeggins (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle as a very significant event. However I have no opinions on the timing of posting given what Andrew & Red-tailed hawk said. Too complicated for me to decide on that. S5A-0043 Talk 10:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait (lean support) This is a positive development overall, but let's wait until he's actually released and makes a public statement since it's possible that there is the possibility of the deal falling apart or another State indicting him. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Pleads guilty and has agreed to some dubious terms as part of his release isn't that notable or historic. In addition that the linked article is a dumpster fire, the chilling effect of his conviction (and aforementioned plea deal terms) should have its own article and subsequently blurbed more than anything else.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should the aftermath have its own article? That's like splitting out Collapse of Smile again. I also don't see how that makes the article a dumpster fire, nor why you claim both that the terms aren't notable or historic and that the repercussions are apparently big enough to have their own article at the same time. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the contradiction. I'm forecasting, but I still believe the main article is too broad for ITN and if we were to blurb this event it should only be because it's significance is such that it would stand alone on it's own (which it might, and is partially what I'm arguing for here). My apologies if that is confusing.
 * This is also a moot argument, consensus appears to have been reached and it'll likely be posted shortly. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that notable. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support important event in the western world Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 12:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that doesn't make it true. I'd be impressed to see even one reliable source that's independent of Assange's fan-club that claims such a thing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Namely, which sources would you want to claim that? Would you also want these sources to say that they're sorry they ignored his situation for the past decade and decided to side with state power or do you also want them to say that Wikileaks did more for their jobs than they did themselves? Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can fairly say the press has ignored Assange's situation for a decade. It's been covered with reasonable regularity here in the UK. But I also don't think much of "this is a major event in western history - but all possible sources are in the pocket of the state and won't say so". It's definitely in the news - it's a pretty big story - but I don't feel it's of the towering importance people are making it out to be. It's a relatively quiet end to the whole business. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , this makes it sound like your !vote is based on your personal political beliefs, which generally doesn't go very well on Wikipedia. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All humans have a bias in one way or another. Some feel baseball and ice hockey are important enough to be the top page news, others feel like the end of a decade old saga of the persecution of a reporter that dared to expose violations of human rights and civil liberties by various governments is more important Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Major world event in terms of the history of freedom of the press, the chilling effect on press freedom and war crimes journalism and research. Boud (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A major event in the worldwide history of the freedom of the press? How so? He's taken a plea bargain and is being released. No new precedent is established, no great publication is made. This just doesn't have the effect that you're claiming it does. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, eminently significant. QuestFour (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean support altblurb, more clearly outlines the event but we should wait until there is a definite confirmation from the judge Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's getting a bunch of news coverage, but the actual significance of this seems limited at best. He's pleading guilty and basically being sentenced to time served. Many events get a short term burst of coverage and we don't post them, mainly for want of significance. This isn't an election, a war, or a natural disaster with a high death toll. It's an interesting case that had the potential to clarify some important aspects of the legal relationship between the press and the state. But it is effectively ending in a tactical draw. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything here that warrants a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's conclusion of a decade-long saga that was in the news. It has to be posted. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not a news ticker. Just because something gets news coverage doesn't mean it gets posted. What is the practical significance of this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not a news ticker One could make that argument about every ITN item. — hako9 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why we weigh each item based on its significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By what metric? If it's based on your personal interpretation of whether it'll be important in the future, then you're violating policy (WP:OR, WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely noteworthy. Alexysun (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. It has been going on for almost 15 years, and from time to time it reoccured in the news. So this is very appropriate to include this In the news section. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb, a major headline all over the world, and a continuing story, since the news will certainly continue to cover his coming and going from the CNMI, touchdown in Australia, and any comments he may have after that. This also raises the stakes for some kind of deal with Snowden, and other possible ramifications. BD2412  T 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment and oppose — This can now be properly discussed. Per Ad Orientem, I do not see how this is a major conclusion to the Assange saga. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support never thought i’d see this day happen. Good luck Assange Ion.want.uu (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's official - The judge sentenced him to time served and said he'll leave the court as a "free man" (Source 1, Source 2) Johndavies837 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WaPo may be a better source. He'll also have Wikileaks destroy the Manning information. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NYT argues that this could set a precedent for prosecuting journalists.Will try and add to article soon. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support as this has probably been the longest running case about a cornerstone of democracy in my lifetime. Wikipedia was able to move a step closer to its goal of making the sum of human knowledge accessible due to Assange's efforts. All readers should be invited to ponder how they feel about his plea and release. Connor Behan (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait Article has some serious(?) citation overkill issues. That's not a Hard Wait, mind you. But it is something for at least one of you fixers to think about fixing, before or after it's posted (and possibly pictured). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I would be interested in knowing if it has been widely reported in the US, but it is front page news in Australia. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT per above. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle inasmuch as there are outstanding issues with the article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no lasting significance to this. I can see that it's fodder for the press, who like a good story, and this one's unusual given his lengthy stay in the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequent incarceration. We've been treated to such breaking headlines as "His feet have hit Australian soil". But ultimately it's just one man, he was neither exonerated nor treated unduly harshly by the US government and this isn't the kind of thing that would usually be covered in ITN, any more than the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination was, or other things that generate a lot of heat on the news tickers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No amount of findings that he has endured torture are enough for some people. Connor Behan (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are here to showcase quality articles and writing on current, analyzed events. We are not here to decide whether people have endured our own arbitrary standard of torture that we have not experienced. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While the definition of torture is not arbitrary, we are indeed not here to adjudicate that. What we are here to do is point out that !votes are not votes. I.e. that they count for less when they include claims that reliable sources reveal to be false or misleading. Connor Behan (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean the CIA was actively trying to assassinate him as recently as 2017 . Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeepers, this is 60s-style stuff.  Bremps  ...  17:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are important global issues arising from the case, some of which affect us as Wikipedia editors directly. The most important is that the United States insists that its laws apply world-wide, even to foreign citizens who have never set foot in the United States. This is especially problematic in the the US ranks lower than any than any other Western country on the World Press Freedom Index. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It smokes Mexico, soundly beats Greece and narrowly outclasses Liberia (unless you're of the opinion that anywhere less "free" than the U.S. isn't "West enough"). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: half a million views on 25 June, before his release. Biggest spike of interest in a decade, except for early 2019. Definitely of huge interest. Boud (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's own readership levels are not a reliable news source. Please stop citing them in these sorts of discussions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lord Kelvin is featured on the main page today. The article quotes his maxim that "when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind..." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, alt-blurb. It's a pretty significant event, with Assange being able to come out and meet friends/family etc after serving over five years in prison. This isn't some event where there is lots of news on a day then nothing the next. — AP 499D25  (talk)  13:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb - I think the nominator here, Aaron Liu, lays out a good case that this latest development in the Julian Assange/Wikileaks story is deserving of ITN/blurb level status. The relevant article continues to be (for the most part) reliability updated. - 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trauma Novitiate (talk • contribs)
 * Marking as Ready Full disclosure: I am opposed to this nomination. However being objective, the discussion has been open long enough and there is a solid consensus in favor of posting. I found two CN tags on an otherwise solidly sourced article, neither of which are enough IMO to stop posting. This is good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AO, I appreciate your input here. I am also opposed to the nomination, but I share your appraisal that it's both well-supported and of suitable quality. Thank you for being measured and constructive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt-blurb - Agree with AO, it’s ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a major change to a prominent article based on recent events. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aaron Liu (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted I shall action that.  Schwede 66  21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Julio Foolio
Thriley (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is being discussed for deletion as of writing and the conversation thus far seems to indicate that it will be deleted. The images in the article are dubious, copyright-wise.  Bremps  ...  04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Susana Ruiz Cerutti
Argentine former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, ambassador to Switzerland and Canada --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have REFs for her date & place of birth, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * DOB is not an issue anymore, can't find confirmation for where she was born.  Bremps  ...  05:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've removed the uncited place of birth from the infobox. --PFHLai (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shifty Shellshock
American singer and frontman of Crazy Town. 240F:7A:6253:1:4CD4:EE72:33C0:82D7 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is CN and OR tagged. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Support issues have been rectified. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support there are two cn tags but otherwise okay article.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I fixed the citation needed tags. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I added a {cn} tag in the Filmography section, to a sentence that has failed a random spot-check on footnotes. The bullet-points in the Discography section appear to lack sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've added missing references to the Discography and removed the sentence from Filmography considering that there are no sources that backed up the claim. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frederick Crews
American essayist and literary critic. Death announced 24 June. Thriley (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, once the honors and awards section is fully cited. Otherwise looks to be in good shape. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 13:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - article is well-sourced and the citations are reliable. There does seem to be a lot of focus on Crews’s disavowal of Freud and psychoanalysis. I’m unsure whether it does or does not deserve a prominent place in the article. Also, as Classicwiki points out, the short section on “Honors and awards” lacks citations, but that should not necessarily keep this RD from being posted. The other citations in the article back up many of these already. If I have time, I’ll try to get to these. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Stanley Cup
Article looks good to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 03:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support As an editor on this article, we've been hard at work making sure it's up to par for ITN, and I believe it now is. However, having Florida captain Aleksander Barkov as the photo may be a better choice, given McDavid isn't on the Panthers. The   Kip  (contribs) 04:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A precedent has been set which the championship MVP is pictured and mentioned (check the archive from June 17). Connor McDavid just happens to be an outlier, being the 6th overall player and 2nd skater to win the trophy without winning the cup. Additionally, the previous player, Jean-Sébastien Giguère did it when there was only 100,000 articles in the English Wikipedia. LosAnaheimFan 5 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Kip. The pictured player should be from the winning team, that's the story here, we're not blirbing the fact that someone won the MVP award specifically. And the captain is as good a choice as any. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The head coach, goalie or game-winning goal scorer are all better choices, if we must ignore tradition. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality seems sufficient for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;And speaking as an Edmontonian who roots for the Oilers: congrats, Panthers! You really earned it. (As an aside, I'm neutral re. the image used, and open to being persuaded either way.) Kurtis (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's an American team winning a Canadian trophy, what else is new?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual reason to oppose, or can we safely disregard this comment? The   Kip  (contribs) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean... why run a story about sports championships if each and single year they happen without fault? It would be better if there was a story about it NOT happening.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue this, you could open a discussion on the talk page to remove sports from ITNR, but ITNR lists many different sporting events, so that may be a difficult proposal. The entire purpose of ITNR is for "recurring" events that are in the news. ITN is not only for "special events/disasters". Natg 19 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article's quality is more than enough for ITN, and, of course, the victor of the Stanley Cup has been featured in ITN many, many times. IncompA 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is good and the Stanley Cup Finals are posted every year. Hungry403 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (oppose image) McDavid didn't even accept the award, and the article is about the Stanley cup championship not the opposing teams captain. Historically, the MVP has typically gone to a member of the winning team but given the incredibly competitive nature of this series I suppose it makes sense why the league would decide to deviate from the norm. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (oppose image) Article is good, topic is noteworthy enough to warrant being highlighted on the front page. McDavid winning the Conn Smythe is worth being mentioned, but the image used should be of a Flames player instead. RPH (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * McDavid or the Panthers logo It's always been standard to picture the MVP. We skipped the NBA one this year, but that's only because a beautiful lynx appeared. Unlike that cat, there's no good reason to arbitrarily highlight any Panther who didn't win an individual award (or a Calgary Flames player). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a Support Vote, in case that wasn't clear; the article looks typically fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, ideally with Aleksander Barkov as the photo, or perhaps Sergei Bobrovski. Barkov being the captain of the champion club should be the easiest to swing though. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. There is clear consensus to post the blurb text. I've posted without the photograph, since there still seems to be unresolved discussion on which photograph should be used (if any); additional conversation could be useful in attaining consensus specifically on that point. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must insist (vainly or not), since the main or only reason for picturing the guy who didn't hold the Oilers to one or score a point at all that night is his general association with the Panthers, we use the free picture of him wearing a Panthers uniform, not whatever getup he has on there. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Late Oppose Like too many sport events, this is filled with jargon that make it unnaproachable to the average reader. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is probably biased but there is so much more jargon that could be added. Instead of what we have, we could have "In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers (captain Aleksander Barkov pictured) defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals, after winning Game 7 at home, in regulation. Edmonton forward Connor McDavid won the Conn Smythe Trophy." Maybe we could omit the Oilers part but that is important information. LosAnaheimFan 5 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia - if we wrote all of our articles solely in wording known to an average English-speaker, our articles would be nearly bare of content. Most sports articles inherently presume at least a degree of familiarity with the sport in question, and if there's no familiarity, there's plenty of Wikilinks to help establish it. Jargon is fine so long as it's not excessive, and this article certainly isn't. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's moot, but phrases like "scored backhand on a breakaway chance" (which is not wikilinked) are contrary to WP:MOS for Jargon. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Breakaway is Wikilinked now. Not in that instance, but in Game 3, where it appears first. I didn't link backhand, but if you can appreciate how the blade of a hockey stick has two sides and players usually shoot with one, I think you can deduce from there. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. I have no real knowledge of ice hockey at all, and I can understand the article without any problems.  Usually issues arise when editors use sporting slang rather than jargon, and this one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Filled was an exaggeration, much like your !vote at . I suggest just identifying the individual cases for someone to improve.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know comparatively little about cricket but watering down the Indian Premier League article to the point of tedium because of novices like me isn't in the best interest of Wikipedia (I read that article and while I don't 100% understand everything in it I think it's fine. Same with articles on other, non-sports topics; there's a certain base level of topic-specific language that can't be avoided. This Stanley Cup article is solid. It paints a colorful picture of what happened in a short space. -Pats2017 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Aricell battery factory fire
Ainty Painty (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just changed the tense per WP:ITNBLURB. Would you like to include "at a lithium battery factory" in the blurb as well? Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Do you want to change it too? If yes, do or you can suggest an alt blurb. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant death toll. 2607:F2C0:EA85:FCE0:3CC9:CD90:4853:1B66 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – large number of deaths. However though, at least 22 migrant workers is wrong, as the article states 2 South Koreans were among the casualties. Thus I suggest, "A fire at a lithium battery factory in the South Korean city of Hwaseong kills at least 22 workers, including 19 migrants, most of them Chinese nationals.". — AP 499D25  (talk)  12:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support if updates are made. Very tragic accident. 17 Chineses, 6 Koreans dead (1 from Laos but changed nationality to Korea). Didgogns (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No indication of significance. This was not a notable factory, there were no notable people involved, and there have yet to be any societal ramifications. Ping me if China sanctions South Korea or something. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The high death toll makes it notable enough for the ITN. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 07:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article gives no indication that this will have a lasting impact, and does not mention any major response (such as new legislation) to the fire. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. This one slipped under the radar a bit, but with five supports (including the nom) and two opposes, there's consensus to post. Article in decent enough shape too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Deer
– Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced, good depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 06:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergeant Cecil
British racehorse. Needs some inline citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support sure it needs some inline citations, otherwise article good enough to be posted.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Two {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Zero {cn} tag remaining. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Dagestan attack

 * Wait Article is barely more than a stub at this point, and situation is still quite vague. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt As more details have emerged this has been headline news for nearly 24h and the story is still developing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

* Wait Article needs expansion, but otherwise significant enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No indication of significance. This should be a bullet point in a list of terrorist incidents in Russia, not an article featured on the main page. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 20:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've posted terrorist incidents in the us where like 4 people died even thought hundreds die every day in Chiraq
 * An islamist attack with 10 deaths and a burned synagogue and a church is clearly significant, even if you think otherwise Kasperquickly (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Casually throwing around the term "Chiraq" isn't exactly something indicative of an editor fit for Wikipedia. The   Kip  (contribs) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the equivalent of saying hundreds die everyday in Ukraine, so an attack where 10 people died isn't significant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's in the context of the war. The ISIS insurgency in the North Caucasus doesn't usually have attacks like this Personisinsterest (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many people died, and I don't care what we've posted in the past. Neither of those are relevant to whether this has any encyclopedic significance. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At least 15 police officers died, around 30 people overall. Of course it's a significant attack. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very short article, and seems comparatively minor in the grand scheme of terrorist attacks. The   Kip  (contribs) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support, the article’s been expanded and since my initial comment the death toll’s increased from seven to 27. The   Kip  (contribs) 17:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 28 deaths are enough Braganza (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but it is wise to wait until the article is of higher quality and more information is known. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for more information on the perpetrators and aftermath. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Major attack. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Deadly terrorist attacks targeting religious buildings (churches and a synagogue) are a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a tragic attack targeted against specific people and a large death toll.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment given events Russia is involved with the blurb needs more clarity as to who dud the attacks or their intent. Eg this appears to not be tied to the Ukraine conflict directly. M asem (t) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Gave it a go with 2 altblurbs. Note that I've purposefully foregone the mention of 6 dead terrorists because I don't think it's fair to count them among the people that they've murdered Kasperquickly (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Forgor to vote. clearly a significant event. Kasperquickly (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I oppose the proposed Alts at this time. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 Article meets the minimum requirement. — hako9 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 article is ready to be posted. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 which seems more concise and I don't think the church part is that important. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it kind of is since most people apparently died there, plus they've cut the head of a priest off. More to the point i've actually only added that part because wikipedia has already had individual articles for bot hthe church and the synagogue attacked and i wanted them included in the blurb. Kasperquickly (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An independently notable person died. Add to blurb?  Bremps  ...  18:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The blurb already rolled off the main page, replaced by the South Korea plant fire. Natg 19 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howard Bernstein
British politician. Manchester City Council chief executive. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The second paragraph in the "History" section needs a source but apart from that, the article structure looks reasonable enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 21:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Midori No Sora, I have added some additional sources. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Classicwiki, looks better now! 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 08:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks alright now.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Midori No Sora or @PrinceofPunjab, would you mind marking ready? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Coverage of the subject's life could use some elaboration in the main prose (with references) on his earlier career before becoming chief executive. --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear - he's not a politician, he's a civil servant. This is not an elected position. Secretlondon (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing the Ready tag. Looks like several honors are not sourced. That will need to be corrected before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ad Orientem, take a look now and let me know if there are still issues. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 05:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  07:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Kamala Hampana
Indian writer. Still needs citations. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment still not ready. Doubt it will be updated in time. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 05:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Only 301 words of prose and followed by a long string of bullet-points that need sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margarita Voites
Leading Estonian soprano who appeared internationally. All Estonian sources, that took some time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I worry about using another encyclopedia as WP:TERTIARY, however I have no reason to doubt the info and everything that I have looked up seems to check out. I added a couple sources. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Classicwiki, the article was translated from ET, long ago. Thank you for sources and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved this from 20 June, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lothar Gall
Internationally known historian. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 17:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved this from 20 June, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Works section needs ISBNs or refs.  Spencer T• C 03:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Spencer, I added the list of the German National Library (which is in authority control), and ISBNs (and a few more titles) from de. Anybody could have done that. I am travelling, and can edit just a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Romay Davis
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 20:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jamie Kellner
American TV executive. Founded Fox and the WB. Article still needs some details and would be nice to have infobox with photo. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support looks okay to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The intro mentions ACME and running TBS till 2003, but these were not discussed in the main prose. What did he do from 2003 onwards? THere are also a couple of {cn} tags in the main prose. Please expand the coverage to the latter stages of his career and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Spiridon Vangheli
Moldovan/Bessarabian/Romanian writer and prose writer. Known worldwide for his book Guguță. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.55.27.113 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: I have updated this nomination to direct to the correct article. Unfortunately, I do not think this article will make it to RD in its current state. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as Classicwiki said, article needs a lot of work.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James K. Irving
Canadian businessman and member of the Irving family in New Brunswick; last living son of K. C. Irving, his younger brother died a month prior.B3251 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but not stubby(?); he was 96. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Darren Lewis (American football)
American footballer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - lacking inline citations. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose College section have no source at all.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keith Locke
New Zealand politician ecologist. Died June 21, 2024. Kiwichris (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You've beaten me to it by 12 minutes, .  Schwede 66  02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ready article is in a very good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Cn tags have been sorted now. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: Marking ready. @Bagumba, if there are still issues please feel free to remove. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

[new, reviewers needed] RD: Lothar Gall
Internationally known historian. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 17:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[new, reviewers needed] RD: Margarita Voites
Leading Estonian soprano who appeared internationally. All Estonian sources, that took some time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I worry about using another encyclopedia as WP:TERTIARY, however I have no reason to doubt the info and everything that I have looked up seems to check out. I added a couple sources. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Classicwiki, the article was translated from ET, long ago. Thank you for sources and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Haviland Smith
Lots of issues with article, needs significant improvements before posting. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The status remains the same – needs significant improvements before posting.
 *  Schwede 66  07:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Eberhard Hertel
German Volkstümliche Musik singer. Jmanlucas (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced lists.  Schwede 66  07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu alcohol poisoning
High number of fatalities warrant an ITN posting. | Mfarazbaig (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per List of alcohol poisonings in India, these are regular events, and I can't see that we've previously posted any of these (some of which had much higher fatality counts). Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We did post a similar incident in Russia in 2016. —Cryptic 20:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The non-posting of alcohol incidents with mass deaths, which happen in India at an average frequency of 2 years, as I will term it, is not evidence of its non-notability, rather the lack of an ultra efficient reporting by ITN. Using the predecessor as an argument may be a good way to judge if the current case, doesn't matter if more or less severe, should be added or not. However that may not be the case with this particular case, prior incidents related to which were severely neglected in the past few years. Rather discussion surrounding this case may serve as a landmark decision for future incidents related to it, maybe for those from India and abroad. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 06:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. Unfortunately a routine event in India. --M asem (t) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No indication of significance. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support inasmuch as building fires are also common but we posted the one in Kuwait This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support While sadly "common", the whopping death count is substantial and rare. In fact, given that these happen every few years, it seems to be an endemic problem in India, ie it's a specific example of a significant consistent problem in Indian society. That means it's significant. Also, building fires are common but ones that kill over 50 are rare events. It's more notable than "American celeb dies" stories. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not compare one nomination to another like that per WP:ITNATA — M asem (t) 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support More than 50 deaths. Besides, alcohol deaths are not that routine in India, especially when you take into account that 50+ people died at one go. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Comment: Clear indication of notability, and not a regular routine in India in a way that 1) the high Fatality Count, 2) the overall media attention it is getting, 3) reported by international media highlighting its newsworthiness and broader public interest, 4) the further political and technical and legal implication it has caused and will likely cause in near future, 5) societal inequalities and public health disparities that get highlighted with this case. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the cases with higher death counts, previously unreported, read my response above to Black Kite. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 06:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose As an Indian myself, it is unfortunate for me to say that alcohol poisoning is common in India. While 50+ deaths may seem like a rare occurrence, it is unlikely to have any significant long-term impact. Case in point, it is not even the biggest news topic in India right now. In fact, it ranks behind the 2024 NEET controversy, Speaker election, Euros and the T20 World Cup in term of converge by the Indian media.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK  15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Large number of casualties (250+) and by all indications there appears to be significant political and community reactions from this incident (as opposed to other incidents). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PrinceofPunjab and Masem, it does not appear to have any sort of long term impact. LiamKorda 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Dylon Powley
Former Canadian soccer player. Died in a motorcycle accident. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joshua Wade
American serial killer. Article published 20 June, but appears to have died 14 June. Disclaimer: Nominating this article does not imply that I endorse or support this individual. It is just a recent death I read about. --Classicwiki (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Johnson (cricketer, born 1971)
Former Indian cricketer. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Brief career" Oppose — Iadmc  ♫ talk  16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What does "Brief career" mean? All that was accomplished in his career has been included. Unless you are referring to his career being brief and hence not important to post? If so -- I would request you have a look at the note above i.e. Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's not enough here to warrant his inclusion — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obviously notable, but too stubby and vague ("owing to different issues, he couldn’t prolong even his coaching career), and a lot of the text is identical to this article, that needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the plagiarism (which has left it even more stubby, of course). Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taylor Wily
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - But the article needs a lot of work. I've expanded it with the various obituaries that have been written about him. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I sourced selected filmography list. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good now.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Two {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Resolved the last two tags. Also for those who don't know, he was more than an actor, as he was part of the first UFC fight broadcast, the first knock out, as well as an American who competed in sumo competitions in Japan. Also, he got local coverage in Hawaii during his high school football days as an up and coming player, and was the third heaviest high school football player in the country at the time. So he got fairly consistent news coverage throughout his life. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support looks to be sufficiently referenced now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russell Morash
American television producer and director. Created/produced/directed The French Chef, The Victory Garden, This Old House, and The New Yankee Workshop. Thriley (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait there are two cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we have sources for Date and Place of Birth, please? --PFHLai (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've sourced those to the Deadline obit. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new REF. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted RD) Blurb/RD: Donald Sutherland
Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article needs major ref work done as there are unsourced statements in career section, award section and a bit in the early life section. Might support blurb if article reflects his impact/how influential he was. Support blurb once article is up to shape. Defitnely notable and influential based on legacy section and per other arguments. Real shame. RIP President Snow. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Top of his field, the best actor that we had. His body of work tells you lot, his films are jewels of world cinema. And he was active to last years of his life, so it is decades-spanning career. Him dying is a very big news. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not much point in talking about a blurb until the sourcing is improved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD sufficient quality now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as RD proposer. A good/famous actor but does not rise to the level of a blurb. Will try to do more sourcing work later today. Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb simply having numerous films under their belt, nothing in the article indicates he was a great figure in the acting world (eg no legacy or impact) M asem (t) 19:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But he was a great figure in acting world, we know it. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's nowhere stated in the article. Simply being an actor with a lot of roles and even a few Oscar's isn't enough, that's handwaving. We need an indepth coverage to explain why he has a legacy or impact from his career. — M asem (t) 20:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He is a brand, it's as simple as that.
 * The point of blurbing deaths of famous people is to inform that person known worldwide died, like in case of Sydney Poitier, Henry Kissinger, Jiang Zemin, the Queen.
 * We blurbed former Greece King, surely we can blurb Sutherland? BilboBeggins (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The RD line serves that purpose. Blurbs are reserved for cases where the death has draw attention or in the case or great figures that represent transformative ppl on their field — M asem (t) 21:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ironically, Sutherland did not win an Oscar, and actually won few traditional awards. He is noted as one of the "best without an Oscar", though he got an honorary one in 2017. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready for the usual reason. Oppose blurb on merits. Sutherland was a good and well-known actor, but not in the top tier of the profession. Not that long ago the community turned down Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, two giants from the golden age of Hollywood. I'm interpreting that as setting a very high bar for blurbs for actors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two giants were turned down wrongly, it's bad to refer to wrong decisions.
 * He passes Sidney Poitier threshold and is bigger than Betty White whom we blurbed. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Betty White was a bad post because it was based on popularity. Poitier has a significant impact on Hollywood due to his acting skills and race, which he extended after his career, creating a clear legacy. There is not really anything to say the same for D. Sutherland here, which is needed to post a blurb — M asem (t) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Poitier was famous for lead roles in films that were nominated for Oscar in important categories or won. Poitier had activism, Sutherland was active in anti-Vietnam war movement.
 * They both won honorary Oscars.
 * But unlike Poitier, who in his last thirty or thirty five years only had one prominent role in Jackal, Sutherland had dozens of them. Pride and Prejudice, Six degrees of separation, Cold mountain, and I am listing only Oscar nommed films. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. Hollywood actors are known figures, but they're still just actors, and we shouldn't overstate their world impact. Sutherland is worthy of being listed on the front page as RD but not with a blurb as a top story. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above and as a matter of principle This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The irony here, of course, is that we almost certainly not going to blurb Sutherland, a very famous and widely loved actor, but we have just blurbed Mays, someone about which the vast majority of the planet would say "who?". (That's not a comment on Americentrism by the way, we have blurbed two non-American sportspeople this year as well).  We really do need to think about how illogical this process is. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agreement although I don't accept it as a foregone conclusion based on several votes. If several days are needed to improve the article's citations and make his legacy clearer, we should allow that, but his death is major news and that's the entire point of ITN. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also thought about this. Why we blurbed Mays, who has 30 wikipages, Shane Warne, who had 30 wiki pages at the moment of his death, but we didn't blurb Vangelis, we didn't blurb Christopher Plummer (in my opinion we should jave blurbed him).
 * Donald Sutherland has 80 wiki pages, he is household name worldwide. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely feel that this process is odd and unintuitive, so either we should get rid of death blurbs altogether, or codify the process to which one gets a death blurb. Currently, it is seems arbitrary and based on "transcendence" and "significant impact", whatever that actually means. I personally am biased in favor of sportspeople, but there needs to be a way to eliminate personal biases from ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN is not about fame or popularity. Blurbs should be for great figures with articles that are some of our best content, even if the person is obscure or not well know outside their field. Otherwise when we use fame or name recognition, ITN blurbs favor western people and those in highly public area like politics or entertainment. We have to fight that bias by not considered fame or obscurity as long as the death is reported by multiple sources and the article respects our best work to be featured on the main page. — M asem (t) 00:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But this is my biggest issue though, what makes someone a "great figure"? Some here would argue that Sutherland is. Not sure how you define "best content" either. Does the article have be a GA or FA? Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The two main factors specified on WP:ITN are . The article has already been significantly improved and it continues to improve. Two days ago, it had an ORES predicted quality of C (3.74), but it's now B (3.88). There are 80 language links on the article. It's front page news on Le Monde (French), The Times of India (Indian English), and The Asahi Shimbun (Japanese). That is not indicative of Western bias. It shouldn't be up to anyone here to overrule the news to decide he's not a "great figure". It's major news and replacing an old news item such as the NBA finals with a blurb about Donald Sutherland's death would significantly improve the main page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRDBLURB is the criteria for RD blurbs, which are in addition to the main ITN criteria we don't have to use fame, popularity, role count, or other factors, we consider what their impact was in their field, and honestly, there is nothing in our article that demonstrates that. That type of content and sourcing from secondary RSes is how we determine a "great figure", and not simply by how much coverage an RD gets. — M asem (t) 03:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My points about the international significance and coverage remain valid. I'm not arguing based on fame, popularity, or role count, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning those. The selective approach often taken here towards recent deaths reads as elitist and disregards the impact of films and television on culture. Discounting his role in M*A*S*H which had a major impact on views of war and authority, his performance in Ordinary People, and his other contributions seems shortsighted. As to his impact on the field, he was honored with an honorary Academy Award for lifetime achievement in 2017. The Academy doesn't award those to any old schlub that's famous. His recent death is newsworthy and would serve as a more compelling current use of the ITN blurbs than several entries currently featured. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we consider what their impact was in their field, and honestly, there is nothing in our article that demonstrates that Sutherland had a massive impact in the field of cinema, as is indicated by news publications worldwide prominently reporting on his death. The fact that our article wrongly doesn't reflect that point doesn't mean anything (cf. WP:ARTN). voorts (talk/contributions) 08:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For purpose of what ITN is and that blurb RDs are meant to be exceptions from the rule, and that blurbed items are supposed to reflect the best of WP's work, the failure of the article to be properly sourced as a BLP and the lack of content from secondary sources on how he impacted the industry or left a legacy in clear format is a major roadblock in considering this as an a blurb. International coverage US inly a indicator if a famous name,  unkess all that coverage speaks to his legacy and not simply talking about his death or reprintimg wire stories. — M asem  (t) 09:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will add that since this ITN was started a Legacy section has been added which starts bring this more in line with demonstrating"great figure".  But it is still miles away in terms of sourcing to be even included as an RD. — M asem  (t) 11:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And Mays certainly did not deserve a blurb as I’ve repeatedly said This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The New York Times has not one, not two, but three features about him on their front page right now. The Canadian The Globe and Mail has him featured at the top of their front page. The BBC has him featured top left. The man is a giant, one of the most famous Canadian actors of any age. I don't know if it's a bias disfavoring entertainment figures, Canadians, or both, but not doing a blurb would be doubling down on previous bad decisions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not remotely of the level of significance for a blurb. I was pleasantly surprised earlier, when I saw that he was nominated for RD only, but clearly I raised my hopes too soon. Just to be clear, being a famous person that people have heard of does not mean you're automatically blurbed. Blurbs are for the exceptional few who transcend all others. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Receiving broad coverage at most news sources, and these stories about his career and death are the most-read stories at those sources. Sutherland was a household name, widely respected and richly honored. While the current ITN selection process is biased, public interest is an inherent factor is newsworthiness. To be useful, ITN must grasp that. Other-language ITNs do a much better job of this. Dr Fell (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb Big hunger games fan but unfortunately not notable for blurb (I would argue he's more notable then the locked baseball player, though.....) Sharrdx (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb a popular actor but he was not on the top of his field. LiamKorda 03:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He was top of his field. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His field was acting. Meryl Streep and Daniel Day Lewis are the toppers in this field but he isn't. LiamKorda 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That of course is an entirely subjective opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A non-subjective opinion held by editors who you want to silence. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why we need the coverage of why reliable, secondary sources consider a person to be top of their field, which must be present in the article, as to avoid the handwaving either way that a person does or doesn't deserve a blurb. We want to take editors' personal options and IHATEIT/ILIKEIT type arguments (which are occurring even in this blurb discuss) out of the picture and focus on if we are providing the reader the right justification for a blurb.<span id="Masem:1719004118967:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Photo RD Only He was certainly one of Canada's oldest best actors, but far enough from the top of any easily Googlable list. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know we don't do photo RDs. He was top Canadian actor. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And you know what Keanu Reeves, Rachel McAdams, Jim Carrey, Sarah Polley, the Trailer Park Boys, Evangeline Lily and Bret Hart say about making our dreams a reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is tagged as needing more sources. Not what we need for ITN— Iadmc  ♫ talk  05:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK the More Sources tag has gone as more have been added. Weak Support now — Iadmc  ♫ talk  07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Bilbo Beggins, Daniel Quinlan and Dr Fell, who all make excellent points. Jusdafax (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for those people whose deaths and/or funerals could support a stand-alone article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the only reason for the blurbs. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too still stand by this argument. I have voted to support death blurbs on an WP:ILIKEIT basis before, but I really think these articles are only suitable for blurbing if we have at least an extensive section on the individual's death. That is the work we are featuring in these situations. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would mean we blurb barely notable people who die in really odd ways and get a long death section in their article, and I don't think that's what you all really want, but please correct me if I'm wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't happen. "Death" does not mean "cause of death", instead it is about our response to the event of a famous person dying. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does actually include the cause of death. An unfortunate accident or high-profile murder makes something much more likely to blurb. It's not like barely-notable people frequently die by rube-goldberg machine that needs two paragraphs to explain. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Show me a time when that caused a user to nominate someone for a blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not anywhere in ITN guidelines at all. That would lead to editors gaming the system to fill a death article with reaction kudzu just to justify that article and a blurb. Further, simply having a legit standalone evdeath article would not necessarily be sufficient if the person simply dies of old age. For example, we know Jimmy Carter is close. As a former US president he will likely have a state funeral and all that for a standalone, but whether he would be blurbed just for that is unckearm<span id="Masem:1718963253058:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're saying that it would motivate ITN editors to actually update and expand upon the articles they nominate? I'm not seeing the problem there. If the additions are low-quality, the blurb gets rejected for that reason. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanding a proper article with proper encyclopedic content would be reasonable. What I fear are editors, being told a requirement for an RD urn is a separate article about their death (which is not in our guidelines) will create an article with dozens of reaction statements from any possible reliable source to demonstrare the death was significant, with actually writing towards why the person should be taken as one of the greats<span id="Masem:1718972040873:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a strawman argument. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We know you think Jimmy Carter is close. How many blurb arguments has this page seen since you started saying so? 30? 50? Give it a rest, please. He's a biographically living person. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that having a separate death article is not any guaranty of having a death blurb, nor a requirement for a blurb<span id="Masem:1718972097937:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that was all you're saying, I wouldn't be here. Anyway, after checking to see when you started, I see it's not really a "you problem"; others began earlier and have followed since. Sorry for that. Still, a bit morbid a practice, generally. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Certainly RD worthy but I don't think he quite made the blurb -worthy level.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability per BilboBeggins and Dr Fell. Renewal6 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He is evidently and significantly more famous than Willy Mays and the rest. Citing his appearances in well-known movies from M*A*S*H to the Hunger Games is superfluous busywork. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You will notice that no admin has even posted him to the RD ticker. And the rapid posting and lack of opposition to Willy Mays speaks for itself. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Always with the negative waves..." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Accolades section should probably be orange tagged, several missing references to his nominations and awards. Oppose blurb An actor whose had a successful career doesn't rise to the level of ITN mention. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb He was certainly not the most prominent person on his field. Also, I opposed Willie Mays's blurb because I knew that the next non-american death blurb will have people cite his blurb as a reason to push their candidate articles.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb A legendary actor, but not quite to the extent of one that we would blurb. The “but Willie Mays!!!” naysayers are silly. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support RD, weak support blurb when ready per Daniel Quinlan. Article still has way too many citation needed tags. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support RD because of quality issues that are being discussed. Neutral on blurb at this point. I agree with Black Kite’s comment above that:“We really do need to think about how illogical this process is.” If you have grown weary of this process, too, then please join in on our Talk page ~> Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: @Natg 19, @TDKR Chicago 101, @Pawnkingthree, @Ad Orientem, @Iadmc, @Kcmastrpc, @Staraction, @Trauma Novitiate, I believe you all opposed RD on the grounds of sourcing. I just added a bunch of citations. I am marking ready for RD at least. Feel free to remove if you still think there are quality issues with the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is better, for sure. Changed my vote to Support but this RD has already been posted. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated my vote since the article quality has improved substantially. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Stephen 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * post-Posted comment - But now, whether you support or oppose a blurb, I think most of us can agree that this RD/Blurb process does not work. That’s why I posted this on our Talk Page recently: Please join the discussion >Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems completely random and seemingly depends on time RD item is proposed. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is all this relevent to the already-posted item under discussion? Shouldn't this now be closed as done? — Iadmc  ♫ talk  14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, blurb discussion continues and discussing arguments about choosing whom to blurb is important. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. For an actor largely known for his work in movies, I find the lack of Oscar nominations let alone wins to be a pretty convincing reason why he should not be posted. Michael Douglas and Olivia de Havilland actually won competitive and yet we apparently didn't post them. Blurbs aren't meant to be a popularity contest. Jessintime (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael is alive and is turning 80 this summer. He was also one of those who pour tributes to Donald.
 * He was lead actor in 70s and 80s, it was pretty cramped then. He lost his best chance for Golden Globe win for film to Robert DeNiro.
 * Having no Oscar nominations while being top actor in his prime is also what makes him encyclopedically relevant — the best actor not to receive an Oscar nomination.
 * And he got honorary Oscar, it's more important and indicative than the ones given to Cuba Gooding Jr., Tatum O'Neal, Mo'Nique and others who haven't achieved that much on film BilboBeggins (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, you've responded to quite a few oppose votes. The   Kip  (contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding photo While I remain opposed to a blurb, I think adding Sutherland's photo until something more interesting comes along or he drops off the RD list, is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's have a photo, I am in! BilboBeggins (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be a photo. Please weigh in on the Talk page > Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? so we can have consensus and get this option put in place! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, do not WP:CANVASS individual people to weigh on open discussions elsewhere. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can someone please close this? It's already in ITN under RD — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion is ongoing about whether or not to have a blurb. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Got it — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and photo it's ok just to have an honourable mention as now. Blurb and photo not necessary — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah but it softens the blow to see a photo for the many who wanted a blurb and it didn’t reach consensus to blurb… Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (Post-posting comment) I weakly support a stronger mention than the RD list, mainly because there already is a RD blurb, but that blurb by itself illustrates why "most prominent person in the field" is a poor criterion. Baseball has practically no following outside US, Canada and Japan. Hence, I would reckon a similar amount of people is familiar with both Donald Sutherland and Willie Mays. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Eric Roberts has been seen by far more people than Willie Mays has, even though you very likely don't know who this is. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 16:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Far more amount of people are familiar with Donald Sutherland than Willie Mays. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Mays. Sutherland is internationally known and acclaimed — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. In my opinion, this piece by Guardian shows that he was transformative, revered and top of the field . BilboBeggins (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Iberian lynx
This isn't usually what I see in ITNC, but I think it could be interesting. Inserted more links to news sources to demonstrate that the topic is relevant in the news. Article may need to be updated more with news-relevant information. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose while it is a good and positive news, I do not think it a something that is blurbworthy. I would have supported it if it was a news about the cat's extinction (fortunately it isn't).  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support after thinking bout it a bit and reading other users' comments, I have changed my mind.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * • Oppose as per above, but sounds like a good dyk! Sharrdx (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For DYK, the article would have to be expanded fivefold in one week (not possible due to its size) or promoted to GA, so that isn't likely to happen right now. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for this specific case which just doesn't rise to the level of blurbworthiness, but I would be more than happy to see more positive news like this one! Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit: Support on principle, to support having more positive conservation news on the encyclopedia's main page. Not everything has to be politics and disasters to be blurbworthy. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per PrinceofPunjab and Chaotic Enby. Even though it is a positive news and make me happy to read it, I am of the opinion that it is not main page worthy. Also because it is not a popular animal or Species. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think years ago the Great Panda's reclassification was posted but I think it was coupled with Guerillas becoming critically endangered. But this one doesn't seem to be as notable. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is type of news that an encyclopaedia should feature more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Very appropriate for encyclopedia to include this on front page. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Important and major conservation news. The species was almost extinct not long ago. It's not often that nature topics are on the main page. --Mika1h (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Mika1h. Finally.  Bremps  ...  00:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support this is just the kind of good news story INT needs and the article is well written and sourced— Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a reclassification "on paper" with no lasting impact. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This “paper” does not aim to have an impact, but the importance is that this reclassification is the confirmation of a reality, which is what is being debated if it is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly does, the humans who wrote the report were probably happy, maybe they took their spouses out to dinner. But this is just minor news of no lasting impact. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Good news, and a decent article for us to feature. I would wonder if a move into "Near-Threatened" would be more appropriate for a feature than a move from "Endangered" to "Vulnerable." I hope to see more stories like this nominated, as it's a great way for us to feature our animal articles in ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has been very big news in Spain and Portugal, where the lynx is basically the de facto symbol of environmental conservation. Lynx numbers aren't just growing, they're also spreading out to different areas than the ones they were reintroduced to. It's raised conversations about other areas of conservation, including rabbits, the main source of food for the lynx, which are currently suffering from a disease outbreak. It even has political relevance, as the destruction of the lynx was started in the Francoist period; debates on the legacy of Francoism are a huge issue in Spanish politics right now. I just can't understand the argument that this has "no lasting impact". --Grnrchst (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added this information re. hunting, and Franco's influence, to the article. Thanks for pointing it out! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally the "positive news" arguments are unproductive, and, IMO, irrelevant. To this end, I was somewhat of the belief of opposing this as an administrative change (there are several endangered tiers, this is only between two adjacent ones, but Grnrchst's argument on the impact is convincing, so I'm also going to go support, even if the story is somewhat not just about the relisting itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * – robertsky (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support something to dilute the constant deaths spam. me likey Kasperquickly (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article looks good and I personally find any species on the brink of extinction blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A "vulnerable" species is three IUCN levels away from the brink of extinction. That's not a post-posting oppose or anything, as a good-looking animal article (especially with fur) is a sight for sore eyes. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski and BilboBeggins. This is what encyclopedic news looks like. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 21:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Yakikaki (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose — Many species have their classification changed each year. The iberian lynx is nothing special. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As none of those species were even nominated, much less supported and posted, I'd say it's fairly clear how this cat is all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashin Munindabhivamsa
Htanaungg (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, AGF on references.  Spencer T• C 06:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George M. Woodwell
American ecologist. Founder of the Woodwell Climate Research Center. Death announced 19 June. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whole uncited paragraphs. Needs some work before getting posted. More independent references needed.  Bremps  ...  00:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole article is weirdly written, there are some primary sources and needs a lot of work.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I have fixed up the article. It appears ready. Thriley (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Looks good after improvements.  Spencer T• C 23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Vandalism of Stonehenge
ArionStar (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose besides not posting the other vandalism this group has tried to do in the past, they did not permanently damage Stonehenge compared to Clark Griswold. Publicity stunt which doesn't really make it appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 00:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Thank You, per above. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one of many such acts by that group. This is not notable among them unless the damage was permanent.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The entirety of this event should be one sentence in the main Stonehenge article, if even that. A paragraph if it permanently alters the structure. Beyond this it is not historically significant in any way and I don't know what would possess someone to create an entire article about it. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Arvind
MIT computer science faculty for over 50 years. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other than general notability concerns, a lot of the sources cited on their page are primary sources and need to be reviewed. Scu ba (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Passes WP:NPROF as an IEEE fellow and distinguished chair, so no notability concerns here. Curbon7 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are multiple cn tags and also some sources are primary in nature.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Hajj disaster
Afif Brika1 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment article quality is not up to par; article is very stubby. Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as it's a stub. The   Kip  (contribs) 20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Yikes! We don't have MINDEATHS but if we did this would certainly exceed it This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality It's not even worthy of being called a stub, it's effectively just a list in prose and then table form of numbers of deaths by national origin. Support in principle, but it's going to take significant work at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but oppose on quality This is certainly notable enough for ITN, but the article needs to be developed before it will be suitable to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, still needs improvement on quality. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article needs a lot of expansion but it is blurbworthy event since death toll is extremely high.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to admin if this ever reaches posting stage, the death toll number has changed and the blurb should updated (could just say, "over thousand people die to extreme heat" if you want to be non-specific). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * added alt2 — hako9 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, Oppose on quality. The high death toll makes it worthy enough for the ITN but the article needs to be expanded more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed blurbs focus only on the heat when there's more to it than that. See the BBC report which explains that "One reason there are may be many deaths every year at the Hajj is that many pilgrims go towards the end of their life, after saving for a lifetime.  Many Muslims also go in the hopes that if they die, it is during the Hajj - as it is considered to be a blessing to die and be buried in the holy city."  The article says something of this but it's buried in footnotes such "It is reported that the majority died of chronic conditions."  But its lead doesn't mention this and just gives the facile explanation of the heat.  A more thorough analysis is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the quality is still some way away, but attainable. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability — Ainty Painty (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks to be good at the moment. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin comment I've had a look as to whether article quality has improved sufficiently (based on today's comments) but it doesn't look to be quite there yet, and neither has much prose been added to it in the last day. Hence, it needs some work.  Schwede 66  10:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66 Maybe there isn't much more to say? Like I hate to be the one to say it but the reality is that it was extremely hot and people died from heat stroke and dehydration. And plus maybe if it goes on the In the News section then more people will see it and edit it. Alexysun (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course there's stuff to say about it. Reactions, for example. What's there is skinny as.  Schwede 66  04:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia depends on sources. You cannot write any reactions if there are no reactions in the sources. Alexysun (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stale If posted, it would be older than the oldest remaining posted story. Is that a problem? I'm not sure! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not stale. This went on until 19 June. There are two items dated 18 June.  Schwede 66  04:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's the bill that's still becoming a law and the "recent" death this would (in theory) remove. Then we're at the 20th, with the photogenic cat. Seems pretty stale to me, especially considering how few of these deaths are statistically likely to have come on Day Six (a sixth, I reckon) and what little followup might reasonably follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerhard Klingenberg
Great Austrian actor, stage director, film director, manager of Burgtheater, - had 2 sentences of an article which was up for deletion upon his death. Much improved by many actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good and well sourced.— Iadmc  ♫ talk  08:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment filmography section depends almost entirely on a single source called "Filmportal", is it a reliable source or is it an German equivalent of IMDb ?  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been treated reliable in other articles. Also: these are films that exist, vs. biographical facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ps: also, none of the obits even mentions this part of his career, - we could shorten it if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not every film listed is in that single reference. Stephen 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh, an IP added many items, - I tried to comment out those not mentioned in the ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daniel Patrick Reilly
American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now that the allegations levied against him have been added to the lede. Icky person, but that wouldn't be a policy-based reason for opposing.  Bremps  ...  21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 11:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: James Chance
American saxophonist. 240F:7A:6253:1:C0E7:E4A8:1532:6307 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are several cn tags and an orange tag.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. The Discography is a string of largely unsourced bullet-points. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan Saxe
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It sure is. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara Facio
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is a very good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/RD: Willie Mays
Sey hey. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: don't see any issues <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;"> pbp 01:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d support a blurb. Article appears to be in the usual flux, post death. This wasn’t just any baseball great. Arguably the greatest all-around player in the sport. Maybe even any sport. Jusdafax (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Household name even beyond baseball fans. Funcrunch (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article looks good and Mays is beyond an influential figure in baseball and sports. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb - widely acknowledged as among the greatest ball players of all time.  nableezy  - 02:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - cannot add to what's been said. This should be a reverse WP:SNOW situation. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is solid and Mays was one of the greatest figures in sports history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I was born in 1992 and have never really been a sports fan, but I've long known about Willie Mays. Total household name and probably among the top 5 most significant deaths of the last year. 1779Days (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - household name and one of the greatest athletes of all time. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support A legendary and groundbreaking baseball player and a great human who paved the way for so many.-TenorTwelve (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb, as per all above. BD2412  T 04:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fail to see how this is anything other than Americentrism. There is no way a blurb would be posted for an Indian cricketer for example. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shane Warne's death in 2022 was posted. PeteF16 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Warne died unexpectedly at the age of 52. He was still a very public figure up until his death. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And he wasn't Indian or European. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He was Anglo-Saxon, not the best example. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a good example of anyone, regardless of age, ethnicity or sexual experience, who was blurbed for dying after playing cricket well. Same niche, but polar opposite, like wolves and foxes. What's good for one batsman, and all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He was not an Anglo-Saxon. He was an Australian. I agree with The C of E below that it's not constructive to make this a race thing - but also, that's an absolutely ludicrous way to regard his ethnicity. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The existing bias in ITN in favor of certain countries is an unquestionable truism that has often been the subject of debate. This occasion was not going to be an exception. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It wouldn’t surprise me if Tendulkar’s blurbed when he dies. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And as a white Englishman, I'd be delighted to support blurbing him when the time comes. But can we please not make this a race thing?  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tendulkar's retirement was posted, which is exceedingly rare, and I have no doubt that when he dies, he would deserve an ITN blurb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Americentrism can be a thing sometimes, but we actually blurbed the death of a Kenyan athlete only in February, and a German footballer in January. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull blurb not a serving head of state or government, and the death as an event is not notable. Petty sports trivia, and see discussion as regards Jerry West for my thoughts on deathblurbs generally (TLDR: no) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone else thinks those are the criteria. If you want to make it so that only servign heads of state or people who die in unexpected ways get blurbs, you should propose that in the appropriate place. Saying it here as though it's already accepted won't make it true. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, but surprised that Mays got blurbed so quickly, and Jerry West had lengthy discussion and did not make it. Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As good as West was as a basketball player, Mays was better as a baseball player (though West’s accomplishments as a GM & his status as the inspiration for the NBA’s logo were other arguments that could’ve led to him being blurbed if there’d been enough support). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pull because I remember how it felt to have Gordie Howe's posthumous picture "torn away" from "us", but agree with the sentiment; we're too late. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb per Orbital. He may have been a baseball legend, but he is not a globally notorious figure and it is a sport whose popularity is very local. Far from being comparable to Maradona or Pelé. And let's leave emotions aside, this blurb should be pulled by objective criteria. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of how good each player was at playing his sport, he’s easily comparable to Maradona or Pelé. Beckenbauer was blurbed & I’d never heard of him before his death. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is notoriety really the thing you want to focus on here? While baseball is a sport with a deeply parochial region of interest, it's still a very big deal, and Mays was one of the biggest names within it, not just in his own day but throughout its history. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Mays's death is currently the lead story in the New York Times, and has been covered in depth by the BBC, the Guardian, and many other international publications. His significance was derived from baseball but extended well beyond it--the fact that a Black player, so soon after integration, was acknowledged as the best in the game was as hugely important. blameless  05:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support He has a good argument for being the greatest baseball player ever. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support. Clearly and obviously one of the most influential figures in baseball history - no doubt in the top 4 with Aaron, Robinson, and Ruth, in no order. The only of that group of three to die during the existence of ITN was Aaron, who was blurbed. I see know reason why Mays should not get a blurb. Baseball is substantially globally popular enough to justify us posting two deaths from its ranks as blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb third in career WAR, and everyone around him is either dead or a steroid user. Clearly the greatest baseball player of his generation.  However, I don't understand why we were so quick to blurb Willie Mays yet just as quick to shut down Jerry West's blurb nomination, when basketball is the more popular and well-known sport globally.  Jerry West might not have been in the top 3 players ever, but we didn't blurb Bill Russell either and he was. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A key difference is the timing of the nomination. Jerry West's was posted at 14:04 UTC while this one was posted at 01:00.  This time zone difference skews the demographic of the voters.  And this is very much a voting process in which early momentum is decisive. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes Europe isn't awake. We just don't play baseball here, nobody has heard of this guy. Secretlondon (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a Brit who barely follows sports over here, much less in the USA, and I'd heard of him despite him being about two generations older than me. His death is front-page news on the BBC. As I said below, I do think this process was rushed, but that's not the same as no-one having heard of one of the all-time most famous, successful, and acclaimed batters in the sport. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you live in the Netherlands, Italy, France, Spain, England, Czechia, etc. A player just made the majors after having played Euro ball as a prospect. It's absolutely played there. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're underestimating just how much more dominant Willie Mays was in baseball than Jerry West was in basketball. According to basketball reference, there has been a total of 5209 players in NBA and ABA history. VORP and box plus-minus weren't calculated during West's time, so the closest comprehensive stat we have is win shares where West ranks 24th all time. On the other hand, there have been 23,235 Major league baseball players. Willie Mays ranks as the third greatest batter of all time according to bWAR and fWAR.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 09:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb and oppose pull - but this was rushed. There's no need to sprint something like this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post blurb support and Oppose pull Yes it was done quick, but the article is in good shape and he is a major figure within the sport so I would have supported the blurb had I seen before posting.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an internationally known figure. I have no idea why this person is given a blurb and a photo. Secretlondon (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment And William Anders? ArionStar (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Anders article shows very little impact or legacy outside being the photograph of the famous photo. One such accomplishment it not what leads to a great figure, which Mays' article has in spades.<span id="Masem:1718806170225:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post blurb support An internationally-known sports figure. Not sure why there's supposed to be a penalty for being an American player. Does that mean we should ban Wikipedia (or the Internet) since both come from there as well? CoatCheck (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull blurb per Orbital. Also, I didn't like the way this was posted to main page with just about 10 vote when it is clear that death blurb are also contentious topics and should only be posted after a lengthy discussion.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb, not internationally known, and the posting was extremely rushed. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support pull, this should've only been featured in recent deaths. In the grand scheme of things, featuring sports ball athletes seems to be a waste of space. 68.118.253.248 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull/let's all find something better to do. I really do not get why there is such strong opposition to posting blurbs for North American sports people (Howe, Russell, etc.). Can anyone say with a straight face those individuals were not major figures in their field? Jessintime (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people are so concerned with avoiding the appearance of Americentrism that they circle around into anti-Americanism as a whole. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The result is basically a much lower notability bar for British public figures than for public figures from America (or other countries). Feels like there's some lingering desire to reclaim their status as #1 global cultural exporter. LocoTacoFever (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-support blurb and Oppose pull. Clearly a massive figure worthy of a blurb. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Post blurb support, oppose pull. I'm generally anti-death blurb, and not a baseball fan, but Mays was one of the most legendary sporting figures of the 20th century - closer to a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or a Maradona than to a Jerry West. LocoTacoFever (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, neither of those are a good metric for a DB either; the manner and direct impact of their deaths were not significant as events, unless they get like, assassinated, or something This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-support blurb – A reminder that WP:ITNATA applies and arguing that a figure is not important outside of their home country (which is not true for Mays, as baseball is played internationally) is to be avoided.  Sounder Bruce  19:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It really isn't. Secretlondon (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-support blurb, per above logic and he's one of the last great baseball players from the 1950s-1960s generation of American sports heroes. Surprised and glad to see the quick support for Mays compared to the strange recent lack of support for one of the first three people in the history of humanity to escape Earth's gravity and go to the Moon! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb/RD: Noam Chomsky
Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some conflicting reports that he died. There's no official confirmation (at least that I know) that he passed away. Should it be official, I'd 100% support blurb as he was highly influential and his article is good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The article at present does not state that he has died. I am seeing that at least one report that he has died has been published, and I know that he had a stroke a few days ago. But we can't blurb this (or even consider an RD) if our own article doesn't actually say that he died. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Statesman is a generally reliable source. BD2412  T 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is more about there's no official confirmation of his passing. Some articles have jumped the boat without any reliable word of his passing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that The New Statesman is very unlikely to get this wrong. But if it's the only source reporting the death... I would be cautious, since this one would expect this sort of thing to be covered everywhere. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, an ABC News journalist seems to be reporting that Chomsky has not yet died, per Chomsky's wife. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would support a blurb if he died. An absolute titan of the field of linguistics in a way that even helped to shape the modern field of computer science. And then there's also his political activism and political writings, which were influential in the West. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb if confirmed dead. A giant of an influence in multiple fields. BD2412  T 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support blurb if true, extremely influential. Wait for confirmed confirmation before posting Sharrdx (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait for confirmation -- I don't see any reports of his death besides the linked source. Support blurb if it's true. Estreyeria (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Unquestionably one of the most recognizable and influential intellectuals of the 20th/21st centuries. Thriley (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment update Statesman article was taken down. Sign that Chomsky might still be alive or a premature obit was published. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw this too. Probably best to close this until we know what happened with more certainty. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Undoubtedly one of the greatest intellectuals of our time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If he really had died, it would have been in far more and better sources than New Statesman. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted RD) Blurb/RD: Anouk Aimée
French film actress.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article quality is not main-page worthy as of this comment. There are two uncited statements, one in Personal life, one ending in "critical and box-office disaster." The filmography needs citations as well. After those issues are patched up, we should be good to post.  Bremps  ...  13:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Seems similar case to Jean-Paul Belmondo who was blurbed — recipient of major honorary European Awards (Cesar and Berlin), famous in Europe. But unlike him, she had English speaking roles and had roles recently. Won Golden Globe, BAFTA, Cannes Award, was nominated for Oscar. Extemely famous in her heyday. Looks like a blurb to me. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Filmography is unsourced. Article also doesn't establish how influential she was or why she merits a blurb like Belmondo's article did. Support RD Article looks good now. Can't see how she warrants a blurb/not transformative enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb old woman dies of old age This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – I think being a foremost actor in the 1960s alone is just not quite enough for a blurb. The article quality also isn't up there. If this had been a GA, maybe. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Netural on Blurb She was/is quite a popular actress who had won a lot of big awards but would understand not posting it as an blurb.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, being popular and winning awards doesn't equate to being transformative in the field. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per all above. "Selected filomography" section needs some work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, I've referenced all the filmography section, I think the article is ready now. Alexcalamaro (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bremps, @TDKR Chicago 101, @Orbitalbuzzsaw, @Maplestrip, @Chaotic Enby, @Alsoriano97 -- Marking ready for RD at least. Feel free to remove if you still think there are quality issues with the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Very nicely done, definitely good for RD now! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Stephen 11:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Legalization of same-sex marriage in Thailand
Tofusaurus (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Huge step for LGBT rights in SE Asia. Estreyeria (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is okay. I was going to vote "wait", but on second thought the news will probably be stale by then.  Bremps  ...  13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a very significant news regarding the LGBTQ+ community in Asia.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based upon recent precedence, I have to repeat what I said last time in opposing. Its nothing new, countries have changed that law all the time. Its not like its some big breakthrough.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The C of E I'd argue this is fairly different than the Greece case. Greece was in an area of the world (Europe) where same-sex marriage was already legal in many nearby countries. The only country anywhere near Thailand which has legalized same-sex marriage was Taiwan, which is a special case for many reasons. If you want to look at it from a population standpoint, Thailand has 6 times as many people as Greece, which means it has a larger population than the United Kingdom. I'd argue any country legalizing same-sex marriage with that large of a population is significant. DNVIC (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Legalising same sex marriage s is bigger story in Greece than in Thailand. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given ITN blurbs getting coverage for multiple days, I don't see this having nearly enough exposure and headline coverage to be considered for inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and updated content in the article. This is the first country in Asia to pass such a law and the second or third to legalize (Taiwan and Nepal both did so through courts and legality in Nepal is incomplete)—a landmark event. And the article is well written and structured. ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, article looks sufficient. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the first in the region and as far as I can tell the first in Asia to happen fully via legislation, without judicial compulsion. It's unique and notable in that way.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fine with waiting for royal ascent btw, but waiting till the effective date may make it less of a news item.  The Savage  Norwegian  21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It’s the first Asian country to do so legislatively without judicial prompting, and even though it’s the third Asian country to do so, it’s still relatively new for Asia compared to Europe. And it is the first Southeast Asian country to do so.-TenorTwelve (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until royal assent is given. The bill has not yet been approved, though it is widely expected to gain approval from Thailand's king. Waiting would also allow something like Thailand legalizes same-sex marriage, becoming the first Southeast Asian country to do so to be out blurb; the current wording to shoehorn in the Thai Senate comes across as a bit awkward, but is necessary because same-sex marriage legislation has not yet received executive approval. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support When it becomes official. Apparently there's still some steps needed before it becomes 100% official. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing that is that surprising occured. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's a lot more countries that can and probably will legally recognise homosexual marriages and the last example wasn't posted either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, wait until royal assent as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 since the first two make it sound like it still needs to get through the lower house This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 once royal assent is given. Clearly significant for the whole region. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, but I too would suggest only blurbing this when the law actually comes into effect. This of course gives us more time to further improve the article too. It looks fine for the main page, but it can definitely be better. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We aren't going to post every single country that does this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose do we really need to post every single instance of this? I understand doing it for Taiwan since they where the first Asian country to do so, but this is getting a little pedantic, next up we'll have "the first eastern southeastern Asian country to legalize same sex marriage" Scu ba (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If China somehow legalized same-sex marriage tomorrow, I think it would be bizarre to oppose it because Taiwan beat it to "first Asian country to legalize" status.  Bremps  ...  19:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Though these articles get nominated fairly frequently, we rarely actually feature them. I don't think the "every single instance" argument works here, as no one is arguing we would/will also feature Laos/Vietnam/Cambodia/Myanmar/Bangladesh/Malaysia/Singapore when those make changes in their queer rights laws. This is a first in the region, and an influential country with an enormous population to boot. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Asia is a large continent, and very culturally diverse. You can argue Taiwan has already legalized it, and so this isn't notable, but Southeast Asia is a completely different and unique culture than East Asia, and Taiwan is an even weirder case within East Asia due to its relationship with China. For context, the distance between Taipei and Bangkok is 2500 km, approximately the same distance between London and Istanbul. The fact is, a country has legalized gay marriage without any other country within its cultural neighborhood legalizing it, which is very unprecedented, and thus notable. DNVIC (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Question Could someone explain to me why it isn't merely notable on its own for a country to legalize gay marriage? It's **the** big-ticket gay rights law. We're not talking something more niche like banning gay panic defense, or allowing hospital visitation. It's the most newsworthy, landmark, queer event that can happen to a country, it's only ever going to happen once per country, and it makes the news each time it happens.  The Savage  Norwegian  21:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus, with exceptions, has been that gay marriage legalization is newsworthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This has been huge news and is significant for the region of Southeast Asia. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2. There is consensus to post this. This would be even clearer if royal assent had been given yet, which some !voters specifically mentioned. Nonetheless, this is about to fall off this page and at ITN, it will the the oldest item (alongside Willie Mays), so will not be on the main page for long.  Schwede 66  03:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ricardo M. Urbina
Will need to be updated. In particular, article does not mention his track career at all. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some quotes and specific dates lack sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 NBA Finals
I would wait until the article looks somewhat updated. I will update blurb/image when FMVP is announced. Original blurb basically follows last year's wording/format. Altblurb to bring info out of parenthetical. Feel free to adjust. It is that time of the year when a lot of major sporting events are occurring. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have went through and updated the article a bit more. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support One of the world's largest sports leagues, definitely worth an ITN mention. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Royal Autumn Crest just a reminder that this is not a discussion about the notability of the event as the NBA finals are WP:ITN/R event. This is a discussion about the quality of the article and whether it is ready to be posted or not.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The quality certainly meets ITN standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an entry about a fire today that had 41 references. As of this moment, this article has 51 references, and there are plenty more out there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support although the prose is on the shorter side, article still in a good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Filled with jargon and uninviting to the average reader. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dreameditsbrooklyn, could you give me some examples? I can try to address. I do not see how it is much different that last year's article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 12:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article as a whole seems written for an enthusiast, not an encyclopedia reader. We should not assume people know what 'clinched' and other sports jargon means. My eyes glaze over at the charts which imo are featured way too prominently and maybe are not needed at all. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those tables are all the standard; see e.g. the previously posted 2023 NBA Finals or 2022 NBA Finals. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "clinched" an AmE term? This is used across multiple sports and is not just basketball-specific ones. I loled at Americans complaining they can't read a cricket result until I realize myself can't.
 * The regular season standings does seem to be unnecessary, and the 2024 UEFA Champions League final omitted that and just stated the final position of each finalist in their group stage pool. Otherwise, stats tables are standard fare in tournament final articles and even the stats-agnostic sport of football has one more stat table than basketball, and the latter had four more matches. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Clinched" is definitely used in the US. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this word may be unknown in other variants of English such as BrE. It's not a sports-specific term though so I dunno how it becomes jargon. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article has some prose but not enough. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's close to 2,000 words of prose. How much is necessary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything seems up to par. Jessintime (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I wouldn't be opposed to more fleshing out, but it's in decent shape considering the Finals ended less than 24 hours ago. Typically (looking at last year's article as an example) there's three substantial paragraphs on each game, as well as in each team's season summary, which often starts with where they finished the previous season--Celtics season preview could use that. Final regular-season standings are always inserted in the Finals article--shows where each team finished compared to other playoff teams. "Clinched" is commonplace in nearly every North American sports season article; and while perhaps not as frequent, I've seen it used in Wikipedia and media articles for sports leagues elsewhere. I have a hard time believing anyone outside North America wouldn't understand what it means to clinch a playoff berth or home field. GO CELTICS! User:Pats2017 — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks typical. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 West Bengal train collision
Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose while article is in a good shape, this event is unlikely to have long term implications and effects.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comparatively low death toll (not even the deadliest rail accident in India within the last year), and comparatively minimal impact. The   Kip  (contribs) 21:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jodie Devos
Promising Belgian coloratura soprano who performed internationally based in France, and made award-winning recordings. Died at age 35. - I wish I knew more French and had more time. Roles and awards need more refs (or to be cut). More reviews and more lead would be nice. I'll be out tomorrow which is the last day, so hope for help. 4meter4, you found sources where I didn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- looks well cited. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The string of bullet-points are mostly unsourced and some of the info there is also mentioned in the prose. Perhaps they can be merged to avoid the appearance of a block of unreferenced materials? --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said that it's in progress, and the bulleted items would be something to look for. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing happened all day. I'm back home, and will try. It's not polite towards company, but I feel that she'd deserve to be mentioned. Please keep watching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * PFHLai, I left only referenced facts now, and will try to reference the others also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry for the confusion about 4meter4 who had helped me before with finding references for other articles such as Cecelia Hall, and therefore I wrote what was meant as a ping to possibly help again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Barbara Gladstone
American art dealer and film producer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait article is alright but that big cn tag in the Film production needs to be resolved.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The section on Film production needs sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

77th Tony Awards
Occurred last night, article is getting updated -- table of winners, performers, lead and infobox all have updates. Might need to add more prose though and/or a picture?  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I don't see a ref for the winners, and I would like more prose on the ceremony (there's a bit of prose list for 'other awards' and two lines of response right now). Obviously take this as support once updated, no need to ping. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose like the other award shows, there is almost no prose.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose virtually no prose. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 US Open (golf)
The tournament article seems OK but I will let others be the judge. Jessintime (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is some prose but I think article needs a bit expansion. There is less prose than the previous editions' pages.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not enough prose and summary. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 24 Hours of Le Mans
Article needs some work. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article needs a load more prose rather than just tables. Like a long race summary, and also some qualifying summary too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is just tables and tables with just few sentences in between. There is no race summary or prose about the Qualifying results results.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is no way near ready to be posted. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302, PrinceofPunjab and LiamKorda. Way too much work. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment still has some uncited lines but it isn't impossible for it to meet standards in time. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Brumley (infielder)
American professional baseball utility player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't the disambiguation be on year of birth rather than baseball primary position? Strange disambiguation choice. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The conventions at WP:NCBASE state to use position before year of birth, which is the last resort. Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article look alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is long enough and well-cited enough for posting.  Bremps  ...  01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you Please take a look ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jadallah Azzuz at-Talhi
Two time PM of Libya under Gaddafi. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a stub at 1401 characters. Only two sentences cover his first 40 years of life. Dusek has 2,114, Hughes has 4,077, and Abu Maraheel, a GA, has 7,802. The comps to Hughes and Abu Maraheel are odd. Dusek has 50% more prose than at-Talhi. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could tell this was the shortest one, but they all looked shorter than medium to me. As my copyedit alone removed over 700 characters, I don't think such a gap between this and Dusek's is that big. I'll defer to you, though, and cancel my vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could tell this was the shortest one, but they all looked shorter than medium to me. As my copyedit alone removed over 700 characters, I don't think such a gap between this and Dusek's is that big. I'll defer to you, though, and cancel my vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article would have been enough for a MP but for a head of a government, article is no way near ready.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Pressler (politician)
He died on the 7th but his death was announced on the 15th. Article almost ready in terms of citations, however, I've found a couple spots where they're lacking (some information can be deleted and re-added once a citation is found). Disclaimer: Nominating this article does not imply that I endorse or support all the things this person did. ❤History Theorist❤  04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support posting Assuming all citations back up the statements they are after, the article is of sufficient quality. Ick.  Bremps  ...  03:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ready marking it ready as it is a good article unlike the person it is about.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Marking as attention needed as it has been marked ready for about a day and a half. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , can someone look at this? Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted as H. Paul Pressler to avoid confusion with the living Paul Pressler.  Schwede 66  20:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Kent (chef)
American chef. 240F:7A:6253:1:5831:E5EA:10D7:5033 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Long enough, but not by much. Too many subsections make the article appear sparser than it actually is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually oppose until two of those short subsections are cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu I have added citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, restoring my weak support as I don't like either the WP:CITEBOMB in the lead or the one at the end of "Awards and distinctions", nor that "Michelin star" is mentioned and not wikilinked and then Michelin Guide is linked in the following section. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article meets bare minimum requirement.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) English Whisky Guild

 * I added the Template:ITN candidate for you that is used to nominate stories here. Please propose a blurb though otherwise it will be hard to asses what the story is. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you I have added a blurb that should clarify the story more precisely.ChefBear01 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 111, no event for this organisation meets WP:ITNSIGNIF (a company posting its annual report isn't ITN worthy). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , It is not just the release of a report but the the first report published by the organisation which is significant as up to that point there were no previous in depth reports by an organisation that covered the topic in this report. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kasai River disaster
Over 80 people have died when an overloaded ship has sunk in Congo. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs some cleanup, and it should be a blurb, not ongoing. Regarding notability, we posted Sinking of the Zico but did not post 2024 Bangui river disaster, so I'm not sure. Sadly, those tragic incidents seem all too commonplace... Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and entire understand what you mean. It's hard to say. But close to 90 people dead IMHO is notable even if it happens in a "third-world country". But I a also not 100% sure what the best approach here. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't really have in mind the "third-world country" aspect of it, but it's true that where it happened shouldn't matter for notability, especially since we just posted 2024 Mangaf building fire. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly even now the Bangui article is well below par for quality and length for posting. That was why it wasn't posted, so we shouldn't judge it that way. This article still needs more content before it meets the quality aspects we expect.<span id="Masem:1718464406718:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, in this case I would support on notability, provided the article is expanded enough. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Kwara boat disaster was also posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support the story for notability, but the article is too short and in need of cleanup to meet quality and updated content standards. To quote the updated content standards, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have expended the stub a bit and aded info about 21 children. Would the size suffice in your opinion? Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now, it seems rather suitable in scale to me? Start-class rather than a stub.2601:445:600:4C80:E1A5:FB7C:658C:937F (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality it is a blurbworthy story but article is a bit short for the main page.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: UEFA Euro 2024
Yesterday marked the first match, the main international football championship in Europe, so it should be added to ongoing now. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 12:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not believe we have posted the Euros to Ongoing before (I checked 2016 and 2021 and they were both proposed but rejected). If I remember correctly the only sporting events that are posted to Ongoing are the Olympics and the (football) World Cup. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree here... Olympics and World Cup have wide international exposure as one of the reasons for these in ongoing. While this event is multinational, I don't think we should use ongoing for it.<span id="Masem:1718455891820:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 12:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, major soccer event. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose No need for ongoing, we don't usually add that for sporting events and would be a slippery slope. We'll post the final result when it occurs and that's fine. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can post the World Cup, but not the continental-level competitions, and doing this only for Europe would be more systemic bias. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per precedent. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose World level tournament for Ongoing. Result only for Continental. -- KTC (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to agree with the argument that this is only a continental tournament, but arguing that there’s a precedent not to post this or that it’d create systemic bias doesn’t hold. All that was broken when we posted the 2014 Commonwealth Games to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We'll post once the tournament is concluded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose post results when done Ion.want.uu (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Campbell
English footballer, played for Arsenal and Everton (amongst others). Article needs a bit of referencing. I think this is good enough now. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Fine and ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been marked ready for 36 hours now. I can't promote it myself as it's my own nomination. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll give it one more bump. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up, I'm posting it an AN. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're also making the same mistake I repeatedly did (immediately refocusing on Willie Mays); good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matija Sarkic
Montenegran footballer. Article is reasonably well sourced but needs tidying up. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: the article should be good to go. Terrible news, by the way... Oltrepier (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted - &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sreedharan Champad
Indian malayalam language author and historian. Ktin (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks okay to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support posting Quality of the article is fine for main page.  Bremps  ...  14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: George Nethercutt
American lawyer, author, and politician, very notable for defeating U.S. House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994.Needs a bit more work.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose an orange tag and various cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Guy Warren (artist)
Needs a bit more work. Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait two cn tags but otherwise okay.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 South African presidential election
One of the most historic days in South African history! For the first time since the end of apartheid, the ANC no longer controls the government, and has coalitioned with the DA opposition. This is pretty huge for the country, as this is almost the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats forming a coalition government. Lots of media coverage as well. Might be good to create a separate article on the new government that has formed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, finally, south africa can be free from ANC Tyranny! Lukt64 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:POV, but yeah it's a big moment for SA. ANC are still in power though, just have to share it on a largely equal basis with their main rival. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the historic election results is already posted recently this is just a update. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Altblurb 1 suggested Rephrasing to replace the buzzword "government of national unity". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Better word would be 'coalition' as the ANC and DA are jointly ruling the country now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed "with the support of" to "via a coalition with". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we already posted the election. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We posted the 2023 re-election of Pedro Sánchez to ITN, however. Which you also opposed, I know. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * that was an exceptional case, as Sánchez managed to be re-elected prime minister after a controversial pact for a controversial amnesty law for those persecuted during the 2017 constitutional crisis, this being the main issue. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. The election was already posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article is a woeful stub.  Schwede 66  03:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose election was already posted. Scu ba (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Angela Bofill
American singer-songwriter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several paragraphs need sources, as does the Discography section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article quality could be better. The discography, awards, personal life and other media appearances sections fall short in terms of citations.  Bremps  ...  19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Laurence Gluck
American real estate investor and landlord.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Can you please take a look ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean Support looks well cited except for DoB. Support Looks better now ❤History  Theorist❤  05:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Adequate depth of coverage and referencing.  Spencer T• C 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Mangaf fire
Ainty Painty (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The death toll is on par with other natural and anthropogenic disasters that we typically post. Also since many of the victims were Indian, the fire has more international significance. Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the page has been moved. The new title "Kuwait Mangaf" strikes me as analogous to "Germany Bavaria" or "Canada Quebec". Though I guess that's a discussion for another page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's now 2024 Kuwait Mangaf building fire. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved to 2024 Mangaf building fire. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support High death toll with significant coverage and a rare occurrence in the area. Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support High death toll and article appears to be in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted after I tweaked and updated the blurb.  Schwede 66  05:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: William H. Donaldson
Former SEC chair. Ktin (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Almost ready but the Yale School of Management claim is uncited, and doesn't seem to be corroborated by the school's article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I went through and cited the SOM info as best as I could. It seems like a lot of it is derived from a speech, so I worry about credibility. Also from a cursory look, there is a ton of info out there that needs to be added to this bio/article. Does not even mention his work as Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs in the body prose. Wish I had the time. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Downey (columnist)
American newspaper columnist needs expansion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support As an updater. Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost ready I've placed two "citation needed" tags.  Schwede 66  03:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support CN tags looked fixed. Looks pretty good. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: updated tag from almost ready to ready. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Majed Abu Maraheel
First Palestinian Olympian and flag-bearer. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is already at GA status, looks good to post as is. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Goldschmidt

 * Support Article quality looks fine. Blegh. Davey2116 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  03:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Hughes (basketball)
American high school basketball coach.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Howard Fineman
American journalist and television commentator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support-ish looks ok, but some of the sources rely on information likely provided by the individual to organizations (introductions to speakers) and do not represent independent sourcing. However, I will still support. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I agree with Classicwiki and I feel that the article should have a better balance of independent and primary sources. A good amount of the article's sources are from articles/sources that are likely from info he provided himself. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. NEeds better sourcing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed, posted RD) RD/blurb: Jerry West
Basketball Hall of Famer, dubbed "The Logo." Most notable for his time as a player and executive for the Los Angeles Lakers KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Article is a GA and I just resolved the last CN tag. <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;"> pbp 14:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Still one CN tag in the "early life" section. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 14:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Plus I'm pretty sure his statistic sections need citations as well. rawmustard (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like an IP removed my source. I readded it, and the page has been protected.
 * The statistics are supported by the "external links" section, which links to statistical sites such as Basketball-Reference <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;"> pbp 14:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that whenever an actor/other film personnel is nominated, typically the filmography needs to have inline citations prior to the article being posted to front page, so I would presume the same would have to apply to a sportsperson's statistics. rawmustard (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added citations to the bottom of the table <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;"> pbp 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support PBP fixed the citation issues, and the article looks good. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb transformative figure in basketball history. It is rumored that the NBA logo was modeled after him. Natg 19 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. A rumor about him inspiring a logo isn't Mandela/Thatcher level of blurbworthy. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb - Forget about the logo story. He still has many achievements as both player and executive and was one of the greatest of his time. I think that's worthy enough of a blurb. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, leaning support blurb. The rare subject who was top tier both as a player and as an executive in their sport, and therefore transformative of the sport. BD2412  T 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb. West is borderline notable for me, even as someone who probably isn't even top 5 on notability ever within their sport. To me though, I can't stop thinking about how we didn't post Bill Russell. IMO, Bill Russell's impact was greater, maybe nit within basketball solely, but with his civil rights impact factored in. So if we are to believe Russell wasn't transformative enough, then West isn't either, I'd say. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite a shame that Russell did not get blurbed. I thought for sure that he did. Who is the most recent sportsman to get blurbed? Maradona? or was it Jim Brown? (OJ did, but for non sports reasons.) Natg 19 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The last one was Franz Beckenbauer in January this year. Given that he, Pele and Maradona (also blurbed) were generally regarded as the three greatest players of their generation, those were no-brainers really.  The only living footballers that I can think of who might deserve a blurb are Messi, C.Ronaldo, Zidane and possibly the original Ronaldo, and hopefully we won't be meeting any of those here any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If O.J.’s excluded, I believe Kelvin Kiptum was the most recent athlete to be blurbed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I forgot him. Although him dying at 25 in non-usual circumstances also helped. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doubt this is getting blurbed, as the soccer (football) players you listed above who were blurbed also have a claim to be the GOATs at their position. But Jerry was one of the greatest of his generation (1960s), along with Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Oscar Robertson. Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should ever deathblurb people whose death as an event isn't notable (e.g. a serving head of government whose death causes a change in leadership, or a notable murder, etc). By that metric, almost no sportspeople qualify. I do not think this is a failure of the system, RD line exists for a reason. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, part of my reasoning for Russell was his civil rights impact. The same reason I think Jim Brown was worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with orbitalbuzzsaw, ideally, deaths should be blurbed if the death has a tangible impact, "famous person dies" is otherwise what RD is for. I won't oppose the exceptional blurbing of someone of the Thatcher/Mandela standard, as their death will likely have some level of impact (a good rule of thumb is whether the person has an article for their death, like death of Nelson Mandela). It really should be about impact, not about popularity and/or unusualness of the death. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Russell should’ve been blurbed, but the failure to blurb Russell shouldn’t affect West. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that sentiment, but in the sense of there being no hard and fast distinction for deaths where the death itself wasn't the main story, I personally think a bar should be set, and when x is less notable than y with both persons within the same field, and y didn't get posted, then justifying posting for x's death is hard for me. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * West may be less notable than Russell as a player, but his accomplishments as a player & GM may make West more notable than Russell. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Article is in good quality. Supporting blurb because West is highly influential in his field and not to mention he's the NBA logo too! Article definitely reflects his influential status/impact he had. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, weak support RD there's some unsourced lines. And, really, it is getting out of hand to propose blurbs lightly. Opposing for DarkSide. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a serving political head, manner of death not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD per Darkside830 ‍ Rela  tivity ⚡️ 22:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb The article is of sufficient quality for RD, but there isn't anything particularly noteworthy about the death in itself. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb This is the type of person for whom Recent Deaths was created. We should not be blurbing the death of every basketballer (or every sportsperson generally) just because they were better than average. Chrisclear (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was elected to the Basketball HOF on 3 separate occasions, is the only person to be enshrined as a player & a contributor (the latter is for his accomplishments as a GM) & his silhouette is the basis for the NBA’s logo. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not of Thatcher or Mandela stature, and it's really time to stop proposing blurbs for all and sundry, just because they were successful sportsmen or whatever. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Perfect for RD, but not exactly world-changing. Yakikaki (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, weak oppose RD, while his achievements are noteworthy within basketball, he's completely unknown for people who isn't into basketball. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. There don't seem to be quality concerns, so no need to wait on the RD. Discussion can continue on possible blurbing, although I'd imagine consensus isn't in favour of that as yet. (disclaimer: I'm involved on that score as I already opined on the question above). Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - the idea that it needs to be Mandela or Thatcher (seriously, why is Margaret Thatcher cited here lol) is not one that has any basis in the guidelines or our past history. West was transformational in his sport, no less so than Shane Warne for example.  nableezy  - 18:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Mandela-Thatcher standard is very much based in our history. The effect was effectively effected in December of 2012, while they were only mostly dead in a roughly contemporary fashion. Sure, there've been other timely pairs since that could've taken the title, but the people have spoken and the stickiness has stuck (OMD). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thatcher and Mandela both died in 2013, so you might have gotten your timeline mixed up a little bit here. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said it was while they were only mostly dead; see the last (now shown first) entry regarding hospital whataboutism in In the news/Candidates/December 2012. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad, looks like I misread, sorry! Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, some people are fond of repeating the same thing, based on some misguided belief that Margaret Thatcher, giggle, is in the same league as Nelson Mandela in basically any way, and then they try to impose that as the standard for any blurb of a death. If Nelson Mandela is the standard we should never blurb another person's death unless they die in unusually noteworthy circumstances.  nableezy  -  23:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nelson Mandela is no more the standard alone than both are combined. As you say, this is just something people say. In practice, the only deaths we should blurb are the deaths we do blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk why I’m engaging with this, but we blurb plenty of non heads of state, and I literally laugh out loud when people blurt out Thatcher here. But Shane Warne would be the closest example here, and guess what, blurbed. Please stop with the Thatcher Mandela nonsense, because a. The two of them aren’t in the same league anyway, and b. That has nothing to do with if a person should be or has been blurbed.  nableezy  - 02:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason we use them as examples is that both had a significant impact on their country's politics clearly demonstrating how they were great figures and top of their field (it also helped both had significant state funerals that lasted multiple days). It's why we're looking we're looking for the same here, and this article lacks a significant demonstration of why he had a lasting impact or legacy (I'm ignoring the NBA logo issue here). He's got some but not anywhere close to what we'd see with other sport legends like Pele or Jim Brown M asem (t) 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference between West and Wayne vs. Mandela and Thatcher is that most people in the world have some semblance of knowledge of who either Thatcher or Mandela were due to their international impact. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who knows either West or Warne unless they're already interested in that specific sport. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shane Warne's death was blurbed, in case you missed that part.  nableezy  - 13:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb: No doubt he's an important part of the history of the NBA, but for such a young sport/league, I think it's tough to argue that a guy who's not a consensus top 3 of the most important NBA people should be blurbed.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb His death is non-remarkable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Éric Tappy
Legendary Swiss tenor, Orfeo, Tamino, Pelleas. There wasn't much of an article, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article seems to be in good shape. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support no major issues. Well written and sourced— Iadmc  ♫ talk  13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just post This is about to slide off without being posted with only Support votes.  Bremps  ...  14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like its in good order, well cited and no CN tags.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 14:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks fine. No major issues. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I support this nomination, but I would like to see the word "created" clarified. Was he creating tenor parts as in composing, i.e. contributing new notes, tunes, whatever? Or was he singing the part in its public premiere, thus creating (at least for a while) an authoritative way of performing that role, like Alfred Deller in the first film of Auberon in Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream? This is just a question, and does not affect my support. Storye book (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. I need sleep. If no admin is available please move him to 14 June when his death became known. --


 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Marina Tarkovskaya
Russian writer and critic. The younger sister of Andrei Tarkovsky. Thriley (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't run stubs.  Schwede 66  22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Tony Lo Bianco
American actor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment unfortunately the tables are mostly unsourced (and I am unlikely to tackle). Prose looks decent though. Not ready yet. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography unsourced and there's a section of the career part that's unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Orest Lenczyk

 * Comment: a few CN tags still present in the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(RD posted) RD/blurb: Françoise Hardy

 * Support RD, oppose blurb The article is of more than sufficient quality for RD, but the manner of death was not notable, and thus a blurb is not warranted. In my opinion, death blurbs should only be in place when the death itself is a notable event. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD 💔 what a loss ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, as the legacy section states : Hardy was celebrated as a "French national treasure" and one of the greatest figures in French music of all time., I think that it's enough to deserve a blurb. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I support blurb based on this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Loads of people are labelled "national treasures", that doesn't mean we blurb them. There's too much of the "this person is famous, let's blurb them" going on these days. Is Hardy a major figure of the Thatcher / Mandela stature? No. So we don't blurb her, it's that simple. If people want to lower the bar across the board or impose a different standard such as "major contributor" then that should be agreed at WT:ITN first. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Article good for RD though? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks fine on that score. The only issue I can see is length. At 12,000 words, it's halfway between "probably should be trimmed" and "almost certainly should be trimmed", per WP:TOOLONG guidelines, but I won't object to ITN on that basis. Support RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, we have posted Tina Turner and Tony Bennet as blurbs before, based in the "major contributors" or "transformative in their field" rationale. Hardy may belong to the same league. Alexcalamaro (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Amakuru. Was she famous in France? Yes. Was she important enough for her death to be blurbed as a standalone news item? No. *Support RD on quality. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD looks well sourced (minus the lede). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a serving head of state or government, manner of death not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting RD, consensus against blurb. The article looks great. --Tone 07:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Hunter Biden
Mia Mahey (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Update on H. Biden's article is sufficient and event should be historic enough to warrant a blurb.  Bremps  ...  18:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unlike the Trump conviction, this is insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as much as some politicians are trying to make this into a big deal, this is no different than any other low level crime. Yes, it’s a felony. No, it’s not a relevant felony, and it doesn’t become so just because he’s the President’s son. If Joe himself were convicted of this maybe it’d be newsworthy but probably not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - he's a private citizen convicted of something inconsequential in the national or international grand scheme of things and bears no real meaning other than providing obvious partisan talking points. If he was convicted over something related to his father's presidency, that might be another matter. RPH (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hunter Biden is only a public figure because his father is a public figure; absent increased involvement from his father (for example, a presidential pardon) then this doesn't warrant posting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local trivia. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RPH. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The events of his life have little real world impact. Compare it to the recent Indian election, where hundreds of millions of people voted in a democratic election to form a new government. You can't compare the scale of the two events. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Khushboo (Pakistani actress)
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Six sentences of prose at the moment. Needs citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait There's more info in the two headlines I read than in the current article, and who knows what might grow from those entire articles? For now, though, yeah. Way too stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no mention of her death outside of the infobox yet. Too much of a stub. Estreyeria (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her death is unreferenced.  Schwede 66  22:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brad Dusek
– Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to know what he did for the last 40 years. Stephen 22:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He went into construction. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted because of the way it's formatted? Still looks awfully skimpy for a biography. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  20:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/blurb: Saulos Chilima
Malawi Vice President died in Air Crash.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe, blurb? Андрій ЯЧ (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The plane crash event is noteworthy enough to be a blurb. 10 casualties including VP of a country. Didgogns (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I have expanded the section on the corruption scandal and also added a bunch of sources for the rest of his bio. Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb added. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blub Johndavies837 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Rest in peace Bakhos2010 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability of event, death of a Vice President in exercise. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Article is of sufficient quality and event is major enough.  Bremps  ...  18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * added altblurb. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb However, shouldn't the target article be the plane crash itself? Also worth noting, former first lady was also among the casualties. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the target article should be the plane crash. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull Blurb, leave RD Current precedent seems to be that deaths generally shouldn't be blurbed unless they're ITN/R. As Saulos Chilima was not a Head of Government, (or even a Head of State) this means it's not ITN/R. And as for overall notability, Chilima wasn't exactly a "transformative" figure, or at least there's nothing to indicate that in the article. I feel that this was posted far too hastily, given that it spent less than 12 hours since nomination. Nottheking (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically the blurb is centering around the plane crash itself not just his death. The crash itself is notable enough as it killed a sitting VP, a former first lady and eight others. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Lawson (activist)
American activist and university professor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be well-sourced (just added/updated a couple of cites myself). Funcrunch (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of Course, one of the giants of the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Funcrunch. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Rest in peace, friendly giant. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Steele Hall
Premier of South Australia and Australian Senator. NB: I created this article (20 years ago). Hall is perhaps most famous for changing electoral laws to remove the gerrymander that had kept his party in government for decades, thus all but ensuring his defeat at the next election. There can't be too many examples of politicians willing to do such a thing. --Roisterer (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Roisterer, could you address the CN tags in the article please? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 09:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Several uncited paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

European Parliament election
I see lots of news reports about this so what exactly are we waiting for? It might help to make a start. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait A little premature perhaps as the article doesn't even have the seat breakdown yet nor have they finished announcing.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Last time it seems that ITN posted two days after the polls closed, on the Tuesday. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Article is in bad shape with many empty sections and very little content on the results, reactions and implications. There's long way to go before this gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose on quality. Too many empty sections. Wait until the article is expanded and provisional election results/seat breakdowns are available. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait and Improve - We should post this, but we need an acceptable article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Might be good to mention the surge in support of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, which has been a massive talking point in this election PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur, this seems to be the main thing the news is reporting. Curbon7 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ursula von der Leyen did not run in this election, and the leader of the EPP is currently the German politician Manfred Weber. --2.248.103.101 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of all the details but the BBC live report indicates that she's in the driving seat, e.g. The nominated article lists seven alliances and four of them are shown to have leaders who were not running as MEPs.  If there's a better way of explaining the result, I expect there will be alt blurbs suggested. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment von der Leyen is the main candidate, but not the leader of the EPP group. It should as such not say "led by" in the text. I would instead replace it with "The European People's Party Group (main candidate Ursula von der Leyen pictured) wins the most seats in the European Parliament election." I will also say that I would be cautious with writing anything which could imply that UvdL is guarenteed to continue as Commission President. So I would prefer using the term "win" if it is possible. Gust Justice (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To understand this, I read Ursula von der Leyen in pole position.... This indicates that her getting a second term as President is decided by national leaders and then endorsed by the parliament.  So, that seems to be a separate process, just as election of the US President is separate from the election of Congress.  Right?  I'm therefore not convinced that we ought to personalise this by showing a particular politician but it's good to have an image of some sort.  I'll adjust the nomination... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This indicates that her getting a second term as President is decided by national leaders and then endorsed by the parliament. Leaders of the 27 member states (on June 27) and majority of MEPs (secret ballot voting; tentative July 18) . So imo, delay this ITN to July 18.— hako9 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, the blurb which was posted in 2019 was as follows:
 * The Presidential process was not included. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is about the elections to the European Parliament. Because of the unusual institutional setup of the EU, the election of the Commission President is a separate, later election (as noted above), and in any case the Commission isn't exactly equivalent to a government in function and form. I would therefore strongly suggest a blurb focusing only on the parliamentary elections and the outcome in terms of party groups, and leave VDL out of this for now. There is however no reason to delay the article until she is reelected (or not) as that election is another affair, strictly speaking. Yakikaki (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready. There are five orange-tagged sections and no prose at all about the results. The empty sections could simply be removed or merged into others, but there also needs to be at least a full referenced paragraph describing the outcome, reactions etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do think the blurb should avoid mentioning von der Leyen, because the Commission and the Parliament are two separate bodies. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that it's not ready, but the article is in such a terrible shape that all of the questions in the foregoing discussion should've not been raised because the article is supposed to provide the answers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait on the basis of WP:ITNELECTIONS, but wait until the full results come out, and there are still two orange tagged sections. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment and wait The notion that European People's Party Group is the "winner" is quite misleading. We should wait until there is a clearer picture of the fractions within the Parliament, and that may take some weeks... --212.247.95.190 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternate Blluurrbbb #002 The strong results of the National Rally in the 2024 European Parliament election led Emmanuel Macron to dissolve the lower house of the French parliament, the leaders of the The Republicans to fire their president Éric Ciotti in a unanimous decision overturned in court two days later, the left-wing parties to unite in a New Popular Front, and the leader of Reconquête to fire vice president Marion Maréchal for "treachery". (§) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)
 * Support with new altblurb the election is very clearly major enough to warrant an inclusion in the news, however, the blurb and altblurb provided aren't factually correct, von der Leyen can't be the main candidate, she didn't run. Scu ba (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynn Conway

 * Support seems well sourced. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks fine. I would even hover the idea of a blurb for her impact on computer technology, but I don't think the quality of the article is appropriate for it yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Estreyeria (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Edward C. Stone

 * Unfortunately there is a ton of unreferenced material in the article. The cn and unreferenced section tags will need to be dealt with before this could be posted in RD. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Eight {cn} tags remaining in the prose, with half of the string of bullet-points following the prose unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Decision needed) 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election
Part 2 of Europe's "Super Sunday" elections, and Bulgaria's 6th general election in 3 years. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aftermath section needs to be expanded and prose needed for results section. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost ready It needs a longer lead (one that explains the outcome). We don't post the word "plurality" on the main page as it's too obscure. Lastly, it was GERB–SDS that won the plurality and an updated hook should show that.  Schwede 66  03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some sentences to the lead & an altblurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article is good enough to be posted. Scu ba (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Simon Cowell (conservationist)

 * Disambiguate There's a much more famous Simon Cowell and so running this in the usual RD way is unacceptably confusing and misleading. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument for opposing. You can create a discussion on the talk page to change the "usual RD way" if that is an issue for you. Natg 19 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson is that a real policy argument for opposing a RD? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue has come up before but I don’t recall exactly how disambiguation was done. The point is that we need to make it clear which Simon Cowell we’re talking about.  It’s a significant BLP issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there have been rare instances where the name with disambiguator is in the RD line, i.e. Simon Cowell (conservationist). But this is usually up to the posting admin to decide. Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Searching, I find a previous case was Sudan in 2018 in which a disambiguation was added.  More recently, a rough consensus to disambiguate in such cases was agreed in this discussion.  And this was then done for a Bob Brown. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. He was notable; he's dead; article looks ok. I suspect his talents far exceeded those of his more famous namesake. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Martinevans, but as to Andrew's concerns, I do think the (conservationist) disambiguator should be included in the listing. The   Kip  (contribs) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I tried to address the CN tags in the article. I am a little iffy on the alumni verification. Room for improvement, but looks ok. I think going with the current parenthetical, (conservationist) or (wildlife conservationist), would be enough of a disambiguator. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted (with disambiguator). Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like altered this back to the "regular" format (Simon Cowell), but then switched it to its current form (Simon M. Cowell). This seems to be a workable compromise to me. Natg 19 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Decision needed) 2024 Belgian federal election
Part 1 of Europe's "Super Sunday" elections. Curbon7 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Technical Support Should be "its" parliamentary majority, as a coalition, but close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an ENGVAR issue that shouldn't interfere with posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No stalling intended, it's ready when it's ready, just seems the sort of potential ERRORS issue best checked preemptively. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article is currently lacking in prose and analysis. Will support when it improves. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle once the article is ready. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is almost sufficient, but there's an orange-tagged section and I'd like to see a bit more referenced prose in the 'results' and 'aftermath' sections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some prose to the aftermath section YD407OTZ (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article now meets our minimum requirements, so I support posting. I've added an altblurb and a potential image. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support Article is ready to go Sharrdx (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Almost ready I'd like to see some prose in the section "Opinion polls".  Schwede 66  00:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added prose to the "Opinion polls" section, but the article may need more citations. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Including for the part that you added, .  Schwede 66  01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s true. I based that on the lead of the Opinion polling for the 2024 Belgian elections article, but I’m going to do some alterations based on what’s in the body of that article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one CN tag left, regarding that polling sentence YD407OTZ (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've had a closer look. To understand what's going on, I had a look at the composition of the Vivaldi coalition. Adding up the seats of the seven parties that make up the coalition, I come to 76 seats, i.e. 2 more than the remaining parties. That isn't spelled out in the article or in any of the result tables; please tell me if I've missed that. Either way, if I've got that right, then both hooks above are factually wrong. What am I missing?  Schwede 66  03:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, however multiple parties (Open VLD - which supplied the PM -, Groen, PS) in the Vivaldi coalition have announced they don't want to be part of the new government due to the bad results for their party. I'm not defending the blurbs as they're written right now, but it's a little bit more complicated than just adding seats. YD407OTZ (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article has an Aftermath section, and there is an entire new article about the formation of the government fixing earlier arguments that the article wasn't ready to be included. Scu ba (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) French Open

 * Support finally a grand slam event article that actually have prose. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 03:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: although the singles articles are mostly tables, the target article is good shape. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Once the lede is properly written, the article is good to go. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the bottom four sections of the results - Boys' singles, Girls' singles, Boys' doubles and Girls' doubles - are lacking prose at the moment. I'm also not convinced we need that "Champions" section at the bottom; that is nonstandard, uncited and seems to be almost just a glorified gallery. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru Please look into the article once again. I've tried address both of your concerns.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 05:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. For the first time I can remember, a nominated tennis article has proper prose summaries of the tournament, not just tables. This looks good to me, thanks for the much better article this time around. I think this is ready to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There were no further comments in 24 hours, so I'm marking this as ready to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has prose summaries w/enough details & it has sufficient references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siri Kannangara

 * Oppose : I think the article has tone issues right now. It is slightly WP:FLOWERY. Could do with improvements to the layout as well. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Classicwiki Any improvements now? -- PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai yes a bit. I do not understand the line "as the latter offered him the job of senior registrar." Would be nice to have birthdate and death information in prose. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Classicwiki My apologies. I hope I have rectified the phrase correctly. Can you double check on that. --Abishe (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Striking my opposition and moving to weak support, but would be good to have other editor's opinions. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has a lot of details & enough references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Mosley

 * Wait for confirmation. Most sources I'm seeing are saying it's "believed to be" him so shouldn't post prematurely as a BLP issue. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the mayor has said it was likely him.
 * Seeing that they're saying cause of death is likely heat and dehydration.
 * 178.19.184.210 (talk) 178.19.184.210 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A mayor is not a coroner and the key word is likely. Nothing will happen if we wait a few hours for a formal identification and declaration. Think how you would feel if the world's online encyclopedia confirmed your loved one dead before you had been to inspect the body Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb Identification seems likely to be a formality now. It's worthy of a blurb because his mysterious disappearance has been front-page news lately and the readership has been correspondingly high – greater than William Anders, for example.  And it's international news; for example: "British TV Doctor Michael Mosley Found Dead in Greece" in the New York Times. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb If he is all that great of a British journalist, his article is nowhere close to a standard that would be appropriate for a blurb. I see some facets that might lead to that impression but nowhere close to demonstrating him as a great figure in British TV news presenting. We also, again, do not use page views to judge ITN appropriateness. --M asem  (t) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb While he's well known in the UK, he's not particularly known globally. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNDONT, "Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're getting at, but isn't that aimed at "Irrelevant for me/I don't like country X, so therefore I oppose." opposes? I'm not trying game, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think his death is particularly meaningful to the vast majority of people outside the UK to warrant a blurb, compared to that of major world leader or similarly internationally well known person. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, far from being the transformative figure in journalism. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See How the presenter transformed people's lives, "It is not an exaggeration to say Dr Michael Mosley transformed people’s lives. ... Tributes are now pouring in..." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Not a transformative figure, which is the general criteria for a death blurb to be posted. And Television section needs more sources before being posted to RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't support a blurb either, but surely in this case the criteria would be "death is the story" rather than him being "transformative." Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, the death isn't a major news story either. Unusual, yes, front-page story, probably not. And not every unusual RD has to be a blurb. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The story was on the front page of most UK papers today. And that's after days of similar coverage.  And all that's before the body was found so there will be even more tomorrow.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And today, following discovery of the body, the news is on the front page of every UK newspaper except the FT. The coverage is mostly the main photo story or takes the entire front page.  While on Wikipedia, it was the top read article for the day, getting half a million views while William Anders got just 40K.  The RD picks that ITN is actually running got comparatively few views; they are obviously not prominent in the news and readers aren't interested in a dry list of unknown names.  Useless.
 * We can expect yet more coverage tomorrow as the news is still breaking. The latest is that they've found CCTV of him falling down... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN, and especially RD, isn't just about how many views the articles are getting. Especially since we're not picking RDs based on fame or anything, but based on article quality. And, for some people outside of the UK, Michael Mosley can be just as much of an unknown name as any of them. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 10:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Andrew keeps pushing this argument, and it's nonsense. The number of views an article receives should have no impact whatsoever on whether we post it to ITN. I think perhaps we should update ITNCDONT to reflect this, because it's getting tiresome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. BangJan1999 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNRDBLURB, the posting of RD blurbs is determined on a "a sui generis basis" which seems to mean that anything goes and so editors may support or oppose for their own reasons.  Chaotic Enby's reason for not posting was that "the death isn't a major news story either. Unusual, yes, front-page story, probably not".  Evidence is therefore needed to show that this claim is false.  The story is, in fact, all over the front pages and the evidence is that it's dwarfing the recent accidental death of William Anders for whom a blurb has also been suggested.  See evidence-based practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD oppose blurb Article looks good and was a notable figure in the uk Sharrdx (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb his disappearance was in the news for a few days, while he probably died of natural causes. This isn't a Lord Lucan or a Madeleine McCann. I don't know a lot about dieting, but I highly doubt that Mosley's work was as noted in the field as Dr Atkins, for example. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Good for RD but this isn't big enough for a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most of the Television section is unreferenced. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD oppose blurb: when citations are added to aforementioned problem sections. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Looks fine as an RD but I agree with above, not transformative enough beyond the UK to justify a blurb.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate accident for sure, but no more significant than an individual of his fame dying in a car accident. The section is good, but it's not enough for a blurb at his level. I think a lack of responses to the death described in the article is part of the issue. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - While the story of his disappearance has been a nine days' wonder, the actual circumstances are not such as to merit a blurb here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb Extensively covered in British news for the last few days. Death very unlikely to be foul play, probably not notable enough for blurb. Angusgtw (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb: Very extensive media coverage. No issues with article quality (although now stuck with an inappropriate image).Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: post-mortem has established that he died on 5 June. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The Television section is heavily missing references, some items are cited, most are not. The rest is fine and once fixed, a consensus seems to be for RD. --Tone 13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD per coverage, oppose blurb per WP:CRETINISM.  ——Serial Number 54129  16:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cretans are people too, you know. Please give them a break. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Television section still needs some more cites. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is clear consensus against a blurb so I am removing that option to avoid any more unneeded pile-on. Instead, reviewers should focus on if the article meets the RD criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, quality is fine. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Fine", except for the television section, which is still woefully short of citations. - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @SchroCat, @Joseph2302, @Tone, @Amakuru, I have tried to source the television section. I am marking it as ready (at least for RD), feel free to remove if you think more needs to be done.


 * (Given the number of times I have done this, I wonder WP:FILMOGRAPHY/MOS:FILMOGRAPHY guidance language should be updated to highly recommend references.) --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chet Walker
N.B.A. Player and Movie Producer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still needs a lot of sourcing work, though better than when I looked at this yesterday. Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Natg 19, @Pharaoh of the Wizards. Article could be improved/expanded, but I just went through and added a bunch of citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Article looks good with the additional references. Ready to post. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready - stats section is unreferenced as far as I can see. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru - I added stat source now. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted - thanks!  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ramoji Rao
Need Work .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the lists are mostly unreferenced.  Schwede 66  22:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A stubby wikibio with only 230 words of prose, followed by a large table and a long string of bullet-points that lack sources. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Boaz
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 June 2024 {UTC) (UTC)


 * Oppose for now It’s almost good enough, but a few more references are needed in the last paragraph of the “Career” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed the sourcing issues. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Warren Winiarski
As the then owner of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, in 1976, his wineries 1973 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon was entered into the Judgement of Paris (wine), where it won, and made it famous and Napa Valley wines as well. He also seems to be a well known Preservationist. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(RD posted) RD/blurb: William Anders
Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there anything you think is wrong with the article? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall, looks fine, but did not do a full review. Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Neutral blurb. Wait for official confirmation. <span style="display:inline-block;background:linear-gradient(to right,#24D628,#F934EF,#9F5300);padding:2px 10px;border-top-left-radius:15px;border-bottom-right-radius:15px;">B3251 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What counts as official? I've been waiting all week for confirmation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the time, the only publication that reported on the incident was a television station which used his aircraft to make the connection. Now that it's been confirmed by family and more widespread publication, it's good now. <span style="display:inline-block;background:linear-gradient(to right,#24D628,#F934EF,#9F5300);padding:2px 10px;border-top-left-radius:15px;border-bottom-right-radius:15px;">B3251 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate Blurb (which mentions Apollo 8), Anders was one of the first three humans to fly to and orbit the Moon, he participated in the Apollo 8 Genesis reading and, iconically, took the Earthrise photograph. Extremely worthy of having a lead blurb with Earthrise as an image. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb One of the most notable astronauts, on the first mission which flew to the Moon, and he also took an iconic photo of Earth. The way he died is also unusual. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Article is in great shape, as I'd expect for a GA-tier article. He had a very significant and transformative career; as Randy mentioned, the Earthrise photograph itself had a lasting impact. (the fact that it's a Featured Picture is a testament to that)) On top of that, the death is unusual; it was for that reason that we blurbed the death of Kobe Bryant back in 2020. I echo that we should also use Earthrise as the photo. Nottheking (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb While the Earthrise photo is indeed extremely well-known, the person behind it is far from a household name, and doesn't fit the high standards of a death blurb. Although, if it is possible, it would be great to have Earthrise as our image even if he is only in RD. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)\
 * Will say only once more, again, one of the first three humans to fly to and orbit the Moon. If he is not blurb worthy then nobody is, and Wikipedia should stop publishing blurbs. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop posting death blurbs, you say? I'm down. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an "all or nothing", and many people (even in the field of astronautics) are more well-known than him. Yes, that one accomplishment is impressive, but he was not the only one on this mission, and they aren't as well-remembered as, say, Neil or Buzz. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With the latest update, support "altblurb2". Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb The article is rated Good, so it should be sufficient for posting. rawmustard (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural support RD; strong oppose blurb - not a serving head of state/government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You act like we can only blurb the deaths of incumbent heads of government or state, when this is fact not so. I distinctly remember we recently posted OJ Simpson's Death as well as that of Peter Higgs, in spite of neither man having been an incumbent anything at the time of their death.
 * I think we certainly shouldn't have posted either of those, as neither death (as an event) had a notable impact This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The key thing to recognize here is that we routinely blurb deaths (and other events) that aren't ITN/R; that's why this has a yellow box, rather than green. An incumbent head of government dying inherently means a change of head of government, thus it's ITN/R and green. Deaths can very much be elevated to blurbing, for any reason of the deceased being "transformative" in their field, as well as the death itself being unusual/newsworthy. The former has a strong argument (if still debatable) but as for the latter, the rule does seem to be that anyone with a Wikipedia article dying in an aircraft accident (such as Ted Stevens or Kobe Bryant) is almost always blurbed, even when they're well beyond being in the spotlight. Nottheking (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point (and the problem with those postings) is that neither of those ought to have been blurbed. The death should be notable as an event in and of itself, which random plane crashes are not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can possibly say Kobe Bryant shouldn't have been posted. A NBA superstar who recently retired unexpectedly dying in a helicopter crash is a massive story and the way he died was undeniably a big part of why the death was so big. Death blurbs aren't just limited to heads of state or government. Jbvann05  17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altburb The articles are highly important for and changed the world history. ArionStar (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support An extremely influential person whose article is a GA and his manner of death is also noteworthy. I prefer Alt blurb.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I can support a blurb, but focusing on the Earthrise photo when he's far more recognized for a distinguished military/astronaut career overall, is inappropriate. Focus on him and the sudden death. --M asem (t) 04:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb While it is a notable person who died, the death is not notable in and of itself. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - RIP to one of humanity's greatest heroes. He died as he lived. But yeah, the first human to fly to the Moon (along with Lovell and Borman) is definitely notable enough for a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. I think the only astronaut we should blurb his passing is Buzz Aldrin. The others don't reach the level of notability we should demand and ITN is for. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb A notable and tragic ending for one of the few living men (only 6 left now) to have been to the Moon. The articles themselves look good. CDE34RFV (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 14:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable individual that surprisingly did not die from natural causes Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. This is what RD is for. Not every event connected to space flight needs to be in the blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Not every every event connected to spaceflight...". Anders is one of the three people to first leave Earth's orbit, Earth's gravitational influence, to be captured by another astronomical bodies gravitational field, to arrive at the Moon, and to personally see the far side of the Moon. Yes, just an average spaceflight event (!???). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The event was important, as were other Apollo program milestones, and would itself have obviously been blurb-worthy, but it doesn't make every person on board worthy of a death blurb's extremely high notability bar. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , there were three persons on board, the first to go the Moon (a human race civilizational milestone of extraordinary proportion). How do all three not pass what you call an extremely high notability bar? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The mission is clearly very notable but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the people on it are so important. There's a big difference. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a catch-22 argument there. Because under those grounds, it's used to just dismiss all people from being important. William Anders was the one that gave us the photo & quotes that brought the mission into the public memory. Nottheking (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. Notability is not inherited and being one of a notable group doesn't of itself make anyone notable. The members of the group may or may not be notable enough. Nigej (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby, they put it quite well. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose Blurb Per chaotic enby. Sharrdx (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article's in good shape, one of the few people to leave low Earth orbit and his death is quite uncommon especially given his age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. The   Kip  (contribs) 07:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Very notable for taking that photo, article is also a GA. Quite an unusual death too, having not died of natural causes. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 08:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Per Ollieisanerd. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is what RD is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Ðg
 * Oppose blurb OMD -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Photo RD This isn't a classic case of OMD, given the plane crash. But as the death toll is one man of an advanced age, (relatively) far from civilization, any presumed aftermath shan't exactly be a long, hard nor winding trip for the FAA, FEMA or SJCC, either. OMPC, if you will, and the story seems to check out, sourcewise. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. One of many Apollo astronauts, did great work but not a Thatcher or Mandela figure in his own right. Quite something to go all the way to the moon, make it to 90 and then to sadly die in a plane crash... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD/Oppose Blurb per Chaotic Enby 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, support alternate blurb per Ollieisanerd. I feel as though most people know of Apollo 8 as at least a moon mission. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb - By no means a household name, but I do understand the arguments about the photograph. We should post something, though. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus for RD, I don't see a consensus for a blurb. Posting RD. --Tone 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My heart says blurb, but that's filtered thru the fact that he is one of the few famous people I've ever met in person, and he was very cool to a young awkward teenage doofus 45-50 years ago. If ITN was set up more like I think it should be, I'd say blurb. But it is run a different way, and the way it's currently run, a blurb is probably not going to happen.  Reasonable call, Tone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 - The photograph is more famous than the photographer. Therefore no blurb is necessary. Just display the photo Earthrise (ie., replace photo of Narendra Modi). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Rose-Marie (singer)
Northern Irish singer and television personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevabelle40 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose selected discography section do not have any sources.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A stubby wikibio with only 201 words of prose. Anything more to write about this singer? --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as still a stub.  Schwede 66  21:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Nicholas Ball (actor)
English actor known for EastEnders and Hazell. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 09:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is stub in terms of thorough details/info about his early life, career, etc. Filmography section is unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is a stub and filmography is unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A stubby wikibio with only 184 words of prose. Anything else to write about this actor's career? Filmography is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as still a stub.  Schwede 66  21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: T. D. Allman
Obit published 6 June. Thriley (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait there is one cn tag and there are works that are unsourced, otherwise article is alright.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has several cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Six {cn} tags remaining in the prose. Multiple bullet-points in the lists after the prose are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still nowhere near good enough.  Schwede 66  21:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Sooners four-peat
The first ever four-peat in college softball history. Even the NY Times called it "historic". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can support this (women's sports fights systemic bias) but (1) it needs a lot of prose describing what happened and why a four-peat is historic and (2) a lot of images to add interest to all the tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Please keep slang/jargon such as "four-peat" out of ITN. I think I can guess what it means, but I shouldn't have to guess. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * to note, the “four-peat” is used by all RS and is why it is notable. Google “four-peat” or “4-peat” and you see dozens of RS news articles, including those listed here. So I disagree that it should not be used in ITN, since RS uses it way more than not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also to note, “four-peat” is an actual term in the merriam-webster dictionary. So, it is not “slang” or “jargon”. Just because you don’t know what it means, doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Women's Softball World Cup actually takes place next month in Italy. Even that top-tier event isn't WP:ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So what? NY Times and ESPN lied? If I misread the sources, please explain what the Sooners won according to NY Times and ESPN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The NCAA tournament calls itself the "World Series", probably named after MLB World Series, but is just an American collegiate tournament rather than an international professional one. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose "College team wins national tournament in minor sport for 4th time". Not exactly world news. Its not in WP:ITN/R and uses slang in its proposed form. (What on earth is a "four-peat"? Certainly not a term we use here in the UK).  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt-blurb without “slang” added. Please strike the part of your oppose for that. Also, clearly you can’t read what was posted just above yours on how “four-peat” is a dictionary term and not slang. Lol… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote that in response to your "Just because you don’t know what it means, doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t" quote. Just to prove the rest of the world doesn't, for its not in the Oxford English Dictionary. Must be some US-specific term. Anyway, the !oppose still stands for it not being on ITN/R.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For your reference, it isn’t just an US thing. Manchester City's Premier League four-peat on ESPN. I still disagree that just because it isn’t on ITN/R, doesn’t mean it can’t be listed. ITN/R is a guideline for things guaranteed to be listed. For a first-time in history event, one would think it should be listed, despite not being on ITN/R. But, I shall respect your opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose not ITNR, not ITN-worthy, not globally relevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Congratulations to the Sooners but this is not really a major global notable event. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergei Novikov (mathematician)
The first Fields Medal recipient from the Soviet Union and a Wolf Prize recipient. — MarkH21talk 00:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Starship successful flight test
Come ON! This is one of the most insane and incredible spaceflights in human history. Completely successful orbital launch followed by a successful atmospheric re-entry and hard landing for BOTH the Booster and Ship. The most powerful rocket in history. We have to post this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Is this even a question? Couple very small failures, but still hugely successful, and they both landed for the first time. This was the most anticipated spaceflight event of the decade.  q w 3 r t y  14:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend everyone go and watch the replay of this, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. Ship the size of the Statue of Liberty plummeting through the atmosphere, green and blue plasma flying all over the feed, the craft literally melting away live but still manoeuvring for landing. Just insane. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 'most anticipated spaceflight event of the decade' no it isn't, not even close. That's Artemis 3, which will land humans on the Moon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a massive step towards that mission too PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not every SpaceX launch deserves a blurb. Even Boeing Starliner's very first crewed flight is being heavily debated below, so a test flight into orbit for a prototype Starship isn't really blurb-worthy. (Edit 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC): Not even into orbit as per below) Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like Starliner is coming to a consensus &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. This was the first actually successful flight of Starship. Very important milestone in spaceflight. Note that this was not an orbital flight though. Agile Jello (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Chaotic Enby. Not even into orbit. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Being on an orbital trajectory is a rather arbitrary requirement, especially as by all metrics Starship made it to space, just not at an orbital velocity (which wasn't the goal of the flight). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
 * This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Other nominations regarding Starship were opposed due to a failure to complete the entire test or meet some arbitrary requirement. Of course, now opposes are citing some other random arbitrary requirement to meet ITN. By all measures, this was a historic moment which may very well mark the beginning of human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Every test flight is a step towards human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement, this one is only one more small incremental improvement, and I don't see why it is any more historic than any other. It's not about a random arbitrary requirement, it's about the fact that we don't blurb test flights achieving slightly more than the previous test flight. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First fully successful test flight of the first fully reusable and most powerful rocket in history, as well as the largest vehicle to ever make a controlled landing, as well as being all over the news. We've posted a lot less. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's easy to describe every test flight as a "first" in something as they each do incrementally better than the previous one, but until there's an actual payload, or maybe even manned mission, not every Starship first should be ITN-relevant. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the first commercial satellite launch of Starship would be notable for ITN in your view? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I don't believe in posting every Starship "first", but if there's one to pick, it's either that or the first manned flight. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I personally believe this is notable enough to be posted PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus the first successful flight and landing of a fully reusable rocket, which is a game-changer. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another incremental test flight, still not to orbit and still without a payload. 'Successful hard landing' is a euphemism for 'intentionally destroyed on impact'. I'm getting pretty fed up of every test being nominated. If Starship actually achieves something useful then I'll reconsider; gradually getting closer to a usable state isn't blurb-worthy. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did "hard landing" come from? The article claims soft landings for both the ship and the booster, and the CBS News source it links to appears to confirm that (although for the ship it simply quotes Musk's claim on that). 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Hard landing' is in the nomination above. The article calls it a 'virtual landing' i.e. not a real landing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From the article: "B11 successfully splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico, in what SpaceX has confirmed was a soft landing" and "S29 splashed down softly in the Indian Ocean." If that's wrong, it should probably be corrected, but the sources given seem to confirm it. 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both the Booster and Ship appeared to land intact based on the telemetry (though the ship had taken damage on the flaps), I don't think we've gotten confirmation yet as to their status now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mention of "hard landing" in nomination appears to be in error? Both vehicles performed soft touchdowns successfully &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITNCDONT point 4 &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did read the article - at the time of my comment it said nothing about the landings, only plans for the landings. We can argue semantics if you like, but being destroyed when they enter the ocean does not constitute a soft landing to me, even if they slowed down first. There's no evidence either craft was in the intended location either - the upper stage almost certainly wasn't, given its fins were completely shredded during re-entry. Anyway, none of this makes this more than a test flight, so it isn't suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an uninformed analysis. Starship was orbiting the earth at 26.000 km/h and slowed down to 50km/h performing a vertical soft landing. The same happened for the booster. The entire stack is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. This is a monumental achievement and an historic first in human spaceflight technology. Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history. We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission (performed by an extremely delayed but totally ordinary launch platform) and not this? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Starship was orbiting the earth It was not, this was a suborbital flight Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history I remember SpaceX attempting this three times already, and claiming each time that it was the first "true" success We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission And, more importantly, is Boeing Starliner's first manned flight, rather than its fourth test flight Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The news here is that both the booster and the launch vehicle of the most powerful rocket ever achieved orbital re-entry and performed the first vertical soft water landings in history. Calling that flight "sub orbital" is farcical. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So jarring that the Starliner launch is the first item and this is not even mentioned... unfortunately the topic at this point is absurdly polarised and the results are simply comical. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But it was not an orbital flight. They weren't on an orbital trajectory at any point. That's literally the definition of suborbital. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. I also get the feeling that this is an incremental improvement, which is exactly what Starship's development approach really is. This is the fourth integrated flight test in less than a year, and there's going to be a fifth one by the end of this month. I really don't see why this one warrants inclusion. When it achieves something beyond the current limits of spaceflight development, then that would be the right news to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If IFT-5 is another flight like this, even if the full system is recovered, I would be against posting, but this is the first fully successful flight, and previous tests were shut down due to not all objectives of the mission being met.
 * The booster catch, if performed successfully on IFT-5, would definitely fit ITN imo PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per PrecariousWorlds and Kcmastrpc. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose another week, another SpaceX launch. Starship is launching test flights so often now that it is hard to keep track (expected to have 4 more this year). So what that this one did not explode. When Starship has its first crewed launch, then we can post. Natg 19 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surely it's not necessary to have every space flight included here. Got to be something really out of the ordinary. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not just an ordinary space flight; it is the first fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft currently operational. Surely the complete success of IFT-4 deserves a brief mention in current events, as opposed to the incremental successes of the last two Starship flights. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. I'll consider supporting if/when they do a crewed launch, but this is just another incremental test. The   Kip  (contribs) 19:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While we'd posted IFT-1, it quickly came in retrospect to have been viewed as a mistake, and neither IFT-2 or IFT-3 were posted. This is merely an incremental test flight that doesn't mark any big turning point. The only difference being claimed is that the vehicles mostly remained intact/capable up to the point they were expected to blow up; it still had a number of "partial failures," so it doesn't even cross the bar as a 100% success, even before acknowledging that an internal test isn't exactly particularly newsworthy. ITN is not a ticker for SpaceX activities; it's a venue for news, not press releases. Nottheking (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What? All test objectives were accomplished? &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, no they were not all accomplished. You can read the list we have on them here. Those yellow items indicate objects only partly completed. "All objectives completed" would mean that list would consist only of green items, with zero yellow, red, or grayed-out.
 * The actual qualified statement is that, for the first time, Starship wasn't precluded from even attempting its final objectives. It's notable that it still had engine failures, and most critically, while it was mostly in one-piece on reentry, it did still suffer a heat-shield breach, that resulted in one of its maneuvering flaps burning partly through. (a decent amount of material was observed to have broken free of S28 during reentry & descent) Given that the focal objective repeatedly talked about was to avoid any burning up during reentry, this constitutes only a partial success. Nottheking (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
 * Not sure what you mean by partial success, even major news networks are hailing the flight as the first successful Starship flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would also like to point out that those are huge first accomplishments in the history of spaceflight... those are monumental steps forward in the history of spaceflight. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I believe that this fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft constructed deserves a brief mention. This story has been covered by multiple major American and international news networks and hailed as a completely successful test flight, including CNN, BBC, CBS, NSBC, etc.
 * Besides, the opposers seem to be riding on a shaky precedent set by the last three Starship launches that failed. This one is a complete success, very different from the previous IFT-2 and IFT-3. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I do agree that IFT-4 was amazing, the exact notability of the mission isn't really that much (especially compared to IFT-1). Frankly, I don't think we should be nominating Starship launches until a major milestone is achieved (such as first full reuse, first ship-to-ship prop transfer, or even first HLS demo mission). Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 21:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Successful flight test and big milestone in spaceflight towards fully-reusable rockets. 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:932B:262A:AD:4D20 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, incremental improvement over the previous flight but it looks like NASA and the media consider this to be a Big F***ing Deal owing to the controlled landing of both vehicles, especially the controlled reentry and landing of the upper stage being the largest spacecraft ever re-entered (semi?)-successfully &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty curious having 3 notable spaceflight-related blurbs on the front page although this shouldn't be a factor in consensus finding &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've not seen much from NASA. I've seen a lot of SpaceX asserting it's a "full success," even though it's still heavily qualified. Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3. Nottheking (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3" isn't this the same as 50% of the items we post? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius and Stoplooking9 Sharrdx (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support having the Boeing Starliner launch in the news section and not this launch which is the first successful complete launch of the most powerful (and advanced) rocket ever built is crazy. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Boeing Starliner is the actual first manned mission, while this is just another, slightly more successful test launch. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comparing the two is farcical. Starliner is a totally routine and ordinary mission. The only notable aspect of that mission is that the first launch was so delayed. Starship is the world's most powerful rocket. Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight and this test resulted in many "firsts" and many records and a huge step forward in human spaceflight technology. In the words of NASA Administrator Bill Nelson: “Congratulations SpaceX on Starship’s successful test flight this morning! We are another step closer to returning humanity to the Moon through Artemis—then looking onward to Mars.” &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight - this is not evident. You're bludgeoning this thread with peacock terms and SpaceX boosterism, accompanied by crystal-ball claims about the Moon and Mars - but the evidence just doesn't support it. It's a decent test, don't get me wrong - but it just doesn't deserve the exaggerated hype you're heaping on it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * this is not evident I understand that. Hence this absurd discussion exists. Unfortunately, to anyone with basic knowledge of spaceflight technology this is abundantly clear. See for example: SpaceX Starship launches on nail-biting 4th test flight of world's most powerful rocket https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-4-test-launch-success
 * What you call "boosterism" and "peacock terms" are actually reality. This is:
 * the biggest rocket ever launched
 * the most powerful rocket ever launched
 * the first successful re-entry of a booster of this class
 * the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
 * the first successful orbital re-entry of a space vehicle of this class
 * the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
 * And many other firsts (more technical). This is a monumental achievement in the history of spaceflight. But sure, let's talk about Boeing Starliner. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why in unbiased and good faith you are actively against posting this blurb about Starship. IFT-1 and IFT-4 are subjectively notable to the same degree. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. Not every single test needs to be posted. Seems like a recurring theme that "ooh-la-la! cool spaceship launched!" is taken into consideration here. Kline • talk • contribs 17:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Israel–Maldives relations
MAL MALDIVE (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor development in the war, and the Maldives already didn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose footnote to the ongoing conflict. M asem (t) 13:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The   Kip  (contribs) 16:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor diplomatic move that won't make any difference to the war. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good attempt but oppose per Modest Genius Ion.want.uu (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosa (sea otter)
Sea otter at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Jbvann05 01:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Well sourced, decent depth of coverage (for an otter you know). Looks good to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually just missed the lack of a source for her death date in the infobox. That's been rectified. It should probably be mentioned in the article proper as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Sufficiently sourced and generally of decent article quality. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready Still many primary YouTube sources, and several tags in the last two sections of the article.  Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All the cn tags have been removed now. Jbvann05  20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready but I support it when it is. The "care" section has some fluff that needs removed too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Looks well written and well sourced (though I would prefer fewer primary sources and social media ones).  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 06:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Marking as ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RIP, article is in a good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Starliner, for real this time
Just about to enter orbit (only took 14 years). Article needs updating.  q w 3 r t y  15:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The most interesting aspect of the CNN report was that this mission is going to fix the ISS's urine recycler which is broken and so they are having to cross their legs up there. But our article says nothing about this and it's not clear that it counts as the sort of "going boldly" that we aspire to.  Compared to the Chinese mission, this seems too lower deck to make the grade. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good for Boeing I guess. This just reads as commercial news to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability Isn't this ITN/R? I believe we posted SpaceX launches in the past. This is a major milestone for the commercial crewed space program, as there is now a competitor to SpaceX. Article itself looks like may need more details. Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like ITN/R had launch of crewed orbital spaceflights before, but it was removed. Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Maiden crewed flight of a new spacecraft. Only the sixth in US history. Agile Jello (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the list of crewed spacecraft, it's 9th in the US and 13th overall. Unlucky for some... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose One giant leap for Boeing's involvement in the urine recycling game, only the sixth small step in corporate American space support history. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - Until the mission concludes, but Hallelujah! It's a latter day miracle! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support. We rightly removed routine ISS crew rotations and new rocket types from ITNR, so this needs to be judged on its own merits. We posted a blurb about the first SpaceX crewed launch to the space station (Crew Dragon Demo-2), so it seems fair to also post Boeing reaching the same milestone. But that should be the only time we feature this spacecraft going to the ISS. The article is underwhelming but in good enough shape to post. I can see a case for waiting until it docks with the ISS though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Dragon Demo was posted in May 2020 because it was a different time with different rules on presumed importance and resistance was futile. Same reason we kept a massive box of constant COVID nearby (more or less). Nowadays, we're free! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: they're having difficulty docking CNN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Successfully docked, as of 17:41 UTC. Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Then we should post as soon as reliable sources have reported that fact and the article has been updated. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is in decent shape and the notability and newsworthiness is high. Jusdafax (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support notable as first for spacecraft, future crewed launches of spacecraft however shouldn't be posted. Happily888 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support as Boeing's first crewed launch, but future launches shouldn't be posted even if they do incrementally better. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support notable due to being maiden flight of a spacecraft carrying crew, has happened on the order of 20 or so times in human history &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: NASA reports that the spacecraft has docked to the ISS so we may want to consider whether to include that in the blurb or not &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 18:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Chaotic Enby. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This marks the first crewed orbital spaceflight operated by a new entity, which brings the world's total to 5. (after the USSR/Russia, USA, China, and SpaceX) To be honest this is the level of something that should have its own ITN/R criteria, but space ITN/R has been... Slashed down very heavily over the years. This has been covered extensively in the news across its entire campaign to reach launch across the prior month, and is most certainly a major event that changes the landscape of human spaceflight. This is a major historical milestone for the subject.
 * Worth noting that this is ITN-worthy specifically for being the first such flight by Boeing; routine crewed flights (they're on contract to provide NASA with six more) aren't inherently newsworthy, the same as applies with routine Crew Dragon or Soyuz launches; we get a few of each for each year. However, the first by an entity is newsworthy, and (while this isn't the proper venue) is something that is a glaring absence from the ITN/R criteria. After all, as it stands India's upcoming first crewed Gaganyaan flight (on track for next year) would, in fact, not be ITN/R, as bewildering as that sounds. So that's a clear indicator that right now, there's a huge gap for spaceflights in ITN that aren't ITN/R. Nottheking (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support now that they have successfully docked. --Carnildo (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for notability and reliable sourcing -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull per . wound theology ◈  19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: having this up while not mentioning Starship's launch on the same day looks ridiculous. The contrast in coverage is jarring especially since many have obviously compared the two launches (since the two companies are competitors) . At this point we should probably remove this as well. It looks like a paid ad for Boeing. Either mention the two (even together) or remove both. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a false equivalency. It's entirely logically consistent to think Boeing's launch is ITNworthy, while thinking SpaceX's latest isn't. Whether one (or both) actually are ITNworthy are two separate questions, but it does not look ridiculous to draw the line between them.  As we've apparently done. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye. As I repeated summarily while closing the other Starbird, it was only a test. This Starcraft is "for real". A test can still be posted if consensus develops, of course. Likewise, "the real thing" can just as easily fail. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference in significance of the two launches is so vast that highlighting one versus the other is comical. One is a "for real" routine ISS crew flight (albeit with a new vehicle). The other is the first successful test of the most powerful rocket in history and the achievement of many firsts in rocketry history (full reusability, vertical landing etc.). I understand if we don't want to report all tests. But then we shouldn't highlight the Starliner ISS crew flight as it is pretty much irrelevant. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems more into making this a Starliner vs Starship feud than you have, in both nominations. I find it funny, but not "ha-ha funny", and agree each is irrelevant to the other. You're probably right about all those rocket science superlatives, but you can't expect a fan of something else to get as excited about it. Nobody can, whatever their niche. Anyway, I appreciate the effort and am sure you've raised a good deal of rocketry awareness in just trying to get this across to us. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gtoffoletto I would second this. Additionally that discussion was closed and archived too soon, in a rush, preventing further opinions and discussions. It was closed after only approximately 24 hours, mostly from people who seem to be unaware of it. Ergzay (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Blackman
Australian TV and radio personality HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Noticeable lack of sources in entire sections and overabundance of CN tags. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 10:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose a large number of cn atgs and multiple orange tags and needs more sources.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Asmatullah
Ainty Painty (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose So stubby that the subject's full name and age are not given. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mononymic names are not that uncommon in Indic languages. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the page is a stub. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 10:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Indian general election
I couldn't figure out how to phrase the blurb in a brief way (I think the fact that the BJP lost its own majority but still has a path to form a government via alliance is significant), someone else will have to do it. Tube·of·Light 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Although final results were scheduled for today, it seems counting still hasn't been concluded. We can't post this until the final results are in, and the article has been updated with them. The article also needs to have at least a full paragraph of referenced prose describing the outcome, which is currently missing. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some summary results have now started to appear, but the detailed results table is still incomplete. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The results table is still incomplete. Is this a problem with updating the article, or is counting still going on? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Counting ended two days ago, I have no idea what is going on with that article (and I also don't have the time to complete that on my own). Tube·of·Light 03:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait if the whole idea is about a possibly alliance wait Ion.want.uu (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb pending final results This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb #1 or #2, but agree that the election article is not ready for the feature. The article needs its result table to be filled in, which is not possible until the count is complete.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb 2 Suggested Alt Blurb 2 for clarity, the first Altblurb loses the significance that is referenced ITN about Modi needing coalition support to get re-elected. Article needs work though Schwinnspeed (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral on Alt3 I added it because this parliamentary majority business seems like a numbers game, first and foremost, but don't like the way the article looks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very much so a numbers game, and you're right to point out the INC gains. But Alt3 feels like we're missing the forest for the trees. The significance here is Modi was reelected, but had to rely on coalition support, because the BJP lost its majority and 63 seats (this is along the lines of every major news headline) I fear the dynamics and implications of the Lok Sabha numbers game will be lost on the majority of people looking at the main page. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured since the other three options already made Modi the star, shifting to party politics was the "alt" thing to do. And I did say it lost its majority, which more than implies it's now running a minority government. A lot of things will always be lost on a lot of people from a blurb alone, I think, just naturally. A decent one is barely longer than a headline, if that. But yeah, I don't care if Alt3's chosen or not. Just "putting it out there". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Prime Minister is sworn in  This may happen as soon as this week as per the news reports. ITN candidate
 * The results of the election are WP:ITNR, not the swearing-in. Tube·of·Light 11:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment on alt4 I have written the alt to mention NDA and to make the blurb concise. This could also be used later on when newer ITNs are published. DogeChungus (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 as the most neutral, as it explains how Modi is still reelected but needs a coalition as the BJP doesn't have a majority by itself anymore. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1: confirming the prime ministership is a formality but it hasn't occurred yet, whereas the parliamentary majority has been confirmed. Also support posting now rather than at the swearing in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 per above. The   Kip  (contribs) 21:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 as Modi's alliance has formally elected him. Like others have said, we do not need to wait for the new term to actually begin (scheduled sometime Sunday night). rawmustard (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 - by far the clearest and most balanced expression of what's happened in this unquestionably headline-worthy event. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 most accurate headline and article is in a good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4 It's the most formal & Least Disrespectful. Maheep Singh24 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no guideline saying we have to respect politicians, neutrality and respecting politicians' feelings are not the same. The fact that the BJP lost its majority and will need a coalition is important enough to be explicitly mentioned in my opinion. Tube·of·Light 17:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2: Suitable to post this today because of the oath taking ceremony of the prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E2:200D:C4D0:BC96:A24F:CCED:2CBA (talk)
 * Support Alt blurb 4: Should've been posted earlier, but today's the swearing-in so nvm. Alt 4 reads the most appealing for the simplicity wrt international audience's pov. — hako9 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb 4 Should be posted today, as today is the swearing-in ceremony. Alt 4 is most suitable for above stated reasons. Leoneix (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4 It's the most formal & Just go quick it's taking too much time PM has already taken over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheep Singh24 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4. Govt has already been formed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this nomination is really to be posted. Lightoil (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt4 –  Schwede 66  09:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: William Russell
Comment Actor best known as Ian Chesterton in the first couple seasons of Doctor Who, and later came back 57 years after leaving for a cameo that later led to a World Record. But he also appeared in many other tv shows of the era. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I watched him back in the day. But the name is quite common and so it won't work well at RD.  Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it might be worth doing like what's been done with ongoing with maybe putting William Russell (Ian Chesterton) or English Actor instead of (Ian Chesterton). TheCorriynial (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember him at all, but the parenthetical in his title strongly suggests he's not the William Russell, so no blurb (regardless of whether he was 99). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the important thing is to keep the readers in the dark, right? Looking at RD currently, we have a serial killer, a hooker, Obama's mother-in-law, a mercenary colonel and some basketball players.  But who's who?  You can't tell any of that from just a list of names.  It's useless.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is business as usual, you've seen it. For those who want light and timeliness, the important thing is Deaths in 2024. Here, we have space restraints and a quality bar holding things back. "Wiiliam Russell" fits, but an extra "(English actor)", "(Ian Chesterton)" or "(Sir Lancelot)" does not. Barwise, even the William Russell can't shine through multiple unsourced paragraphs. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose His filmography section is entirely unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*Support. Article looks in decent enough shape, a very long acting career, most notably as a character from the very beginning of a certain long-running TV show. Challenger l (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn. Challenger l (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: "There's more than one William Russell" doesn't seem a valid reason for not including him. There are plenty of occasions when I've looked at the box and gone "Who's dead?!" only to click on the link and find it's someone else with the same name that I've never heard of. As noted in the box above, the policy is that anyone prominent enough to have an article on Wikipedia is notable enough to be included. The only issue should be the quality of the article. Skteosk (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I really don't understand why we wouldn't. He's got a decent article, and that's that. We usually don't include disambiguation brackets in the RD text of people's names - we just pipelink to the correct article, and I don't think that needs to be any different here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Filmography is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Janisa Johnson

 * Weak oppose Awards section is unsourced and lead is too short. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose two orange tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka floods
Ainty Painty (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article's extremely short. Wait on notability - it certainly looks like it might meet the scale for a blurb, but it's a developing story. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Weather events with more deaths and injuries have not been posted. Single country notability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is not blurbworthy.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Prince Ahmad Shah Khan
Titular head of the Barakzai dynasty and son of the last king of Afghanistan Mohammad Zahir Shah. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has orange tag. Needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is a stub and has orange tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Moltmann
One of the leading Christian theologians.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support All sections seem to be well-sourced.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: added myself to updaters --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * About 6 {cn} remaining in the prose. Quite a few unsourced bullet-points in Bibliography section after the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added Jen to updaters. I woke up to 3 cn and referenced those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He wrote - see: German National Library - more than 350 books. There's a bibliography of English titles in the external links. What can we use? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  10:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brother Marquis
American Rapper Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support All sections seem to be well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support Lead is a bit too long, but article looks good overall. Three cn tags shouldn't keep the article from getting posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. At first, I was really saddened, mistakenly thinking Biz Markie had died, but then I realized this is a different rapper, but then I discovered Biz Markie died three years ago. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose accolades section needs sources.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Five {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai, @TDKR Chicago 101 and @PrinceofPunjab I have sourced the accolade section as well as other citations missing. Hope you find it satisfactory. Thank you. Filmman3000 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brigitte Bierlein
Former Austrian chancellor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There's five cn tags. Otherwise, article looks ready once they're resolved. Support One cn tag shouldn't keep the article from getting posted IMO. I think her chancellor section is expanded to the best it can given her short tenure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is work to be done: the cn tags need to be fixed and the content relating to her, albeit short, tenure as Chancellor should be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is indeed ready to be posted.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Colin Gibb
Black Lace band singer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large sections of career section are unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose two orange tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jeannette Charles
Likely well sourced. 240F:7A:6253:1:61BB:8258:CB1:D733 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article has an orange tag as filmography is unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Dick Sears (politician)
Thriley (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is a stub, needs expansion.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Article is too short and only two sources given, both of which are obituaries. Needs significant expansion on his career in the the Vermont Senate as well as expansion and sourcing on his early life and career. Jmanlucas (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Janis Paige
American actress. 240F:7A:6253:1:BE:C460:CCA2:CE59 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose some cn tags and one orange tag.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Four {cn} tags remaining in the prose. Much tabulated materials under the Television section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Larry Allen
American Football player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is woefully lacking in citations - nearly the entire playing career section is unsourced. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is EXTREMELY under sourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Cain
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate length and fully sourced, marking as ready. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Levy (Israeli politician)
Israeli Politician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The article seems well written but theres a lot of unsourced paragraphs in there . If they can be cited, i'm happy to change my !vote.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Mexico election
Important election. Media outlets in Mexico are already projecting that Sheinbaum won, but votes are still being counted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The Sheinbaum article is in no fit state to be a bolded article. Three orange tags and five citation needed tags will have to be addressed first.  Schwede 66  04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Wait until it's been officially projected that she has been elected. Support Also worth mentioning in the blurb that she'll be Mexico's first female president. It appears the election has been called for Sheinbaum per NYT. The general election article looks good in terms of sourcing. Not sure if Sheinbaum's article needs to be a target article as well. I recall nominating Guillermo Lasso's election but the 2021 Ecuadorian general election was suggested as the targeted article. Not sure if things changed then. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for notability but wait until the election results are fully in. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 11:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait until all the votes have been counted. I also support featuring her picture in the "In the news" box, replacing Trump's. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:9C1D:96E3:DEC9:8217 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and wait per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb, it's a significant election and her being the first female president is notable. Lunsel (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb, high profile country election and it's notable shes the first woman in office in Mexico. Sharrdx (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait Absolutely nothing official yet (silence from the INE is odd and the others haven't conceded). Use the time to find a better photo and fix the orange tags (no s left). Moscow Mule (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the 2024 Mexican general election for notability. Sheinbaum's article needs to be reworked to be bolded. This is the first time a puppet president has been elected since Emilio Portes Gil, and Mexico is descending into a condition of democratic decay, with Sheinbaum herself promising to overhaul the election and legal systems. Her gender is not relevant enough to be described in the blurb beyond the standard reports. She is also the first person of Jewish origin to be elected, the first atheist, and the first person to indirectly earn a Nobel Prize, although these achievements are not highlighted. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 05:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a soapbox. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No opinion as to the article quality, but all the major Anglophone news organizations like AP, Reuters, and NYTimes have called the election for Sheinbaum.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it worth also adding mention of the SHH alliance getting a supermajority if it occurs? A political alliance becoming powerful enough to unilaterally amend a national consitution must surely be big news if it happens. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant Arbeiten8 (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Results and reaction sections would benefit from some expansion, they are really short. --Tone 13:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Notability is significant enough that the election at least needs to be here, and the content is filling in. We can potentially wait to bold Sheinbaum until more is filled in re: her platform and campaign.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 16:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now it's cleaned up a bit more -- both articles expanded, Sheinbaum's tags taken care of, over 95% reporting and official sources announcing her the winner of the quick count -- so it feels appropriate to tag both articles quality-wise.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Very notable and significant election, and the first female Mexican president. As others have said due to the problems with the Sheinbaum article I would wait to bold it for now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No Identity Politics, please (we're universal). Some things about people are just clear by their names and photos. The important thing is another election was won. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason we mention her being female is because she is the first in Mexico's history. Same way we would use a first male head of state. Sharrdx (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I get how "firsts" work, I just think they're overplayed. And no, it doesn't work for (most kinds of) men. The last "real" state to get its first male leader was South Sudan, and we didn't summarize, picture, link, embolden or mention the man (just the system). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reckon it's most significant that she is an engineer and climate scientist. Politically, she seems very much the protegé of the incumbent Obrador. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * South Sudan's first male leader was its first (independent) leader period. And that is the case for most if not all of the world. If after decades if not centuries of female leaders, a male took office, we would mention his status as the first male to hold the office just the same. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in theory, I hear you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as election article is good to go. I'd wait to bold Sheinbaum however, as there's multiple orange tags. The   Kip  (contribs) 18:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sheinbaum's article does not need to be bolded, as long as it is bolded a good article like the one on the elections. Let's wait for 100% of the vote count, but the election article is practically ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3; received less attention then her being a her, but still received significant attention and worth mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it still count if she tells you she was raised by atheists, as an atheist, and "never belonged to the Jewish community"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes; it’s an ethnicity. It’s like saying "first Hispanic president". BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's technically true, and there's also a political element. But I don't think I'm the only one who infers the religious and cultural parts first when reading "Jewish president". If she's not politically Jewish and some point must be made about something decided before her parents were born, I suggest adding "ethnically" before "Jewish"; I still won't support it, but it'd make more sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From The New York Times, she has downplayed her ties to Judaism, her origins have not gone entirely unnoticed, revealing currents of xenophobia and antisemitism persisting beneath the surface in Mexican politics. —Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four citation needed tags.  needs at least some analysis and perspective of the results.  (The non-presidential results are still outstanding, though I suppose that part is not being blurbed.) —Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs work The lead says that there were hundreds of seats being contested for the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. There's a confusing issue about re-election which I don't quite follow.  And no results for these elections are reported.  Nada. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Re-election": confusing and wrong; gone now. "Legislature": still true. Moscow Mule (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The 2022 blurb on Giorgia Meloni becoming Italy's PM didn't mention that she was also the first woman.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Cleaned up Sheinbaum's last few tags. Preference for alt or alt3. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looking good on my end. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support main blurb. Oppose alt blurbs; don't add personal bio bits.  Support removing superfluous "as"; keep it simple: Claudia Sheinbaum is elected president of Mexico.  — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that there's "anything wrong with" President of the United Mexican States, of course, but yes, Support Seven Words. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb Being the first female is what makes it notable, and is in line with how WP:RS are referencing this event. However if we didn't call this out previously for the Italian election result as @Bagumba noted above, then the same should apply here.  Schwinnspeed (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the second point, matter of perspective, but every general election is automatically notable on this site and every notable election article is presumed fit to post in bold letters by these local pagemasters (unless the people choose otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree and have revised my vote after taking a closer look at some of the previous comments. I recognize all general elections are notable per WP:ITNELECTIONS and her being a female should not be the basis for posting. I still maintain that Mexico voting in their first female president is pretty significant, but I will reserve the subjectivity for elsewhere. Cheers to the ITNocracy. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - ITN/R. Also important to note the election of the first female Mexican president as such.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. The legislative results don't appear to be in yet, and I've expanded the sections on that a bit. Otherwise I think all. Issues were dealt with. I've Stuck with a simple blurb (ALT0) without editorialising about first woman or first Jewish person or anything, as is standard practice for elections. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think "as the" overcomplicates things, but yeah, better some wordiness than a hot-button issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Burnside
Scottish award-winning writer Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly Support The ending kind of trails off into scattered short sentences, each beginning (all somewhat chanting) "Burnside", but I've never seen that stop something before and can be dealt with in its own good time, probably; he was 69. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange-tagged sections for sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now finished going through those two sections of awards and publications and have checked them and individually referenced them, so have now removed those tags. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rob Burrow
&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No problems, well sourced. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited, well written and ready to go for this rugby league great.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced DoB.  Schwede 66  20:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And when I tag the date of birth being unreferenced, keeps reverting that edit. Without an inline citation for it, I won't promote it.  Schwede  66  21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Place of birth is also unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref added. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Icelandic presidential election
BastianMAT (talk)
 * Oppose on quality. ITN/R is given, so I support this in principle, but Halla's article is still pretty much a stub, and the election article still lacks both context and aftermath. Once it all is ready, I'm more than happy to support it. CDE34RFV (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We might as well close this now. Even though we at least posted Guðni winning in 2016, there's no progress in both Halla's article as well as the election article itself. And since we've got the results from more significant elections in Mexico and India, coupled with the European Parliament this weekend, the election in Iceland really seems like a sideshow, further exacerbated by the fact that this rather insignificant election has taken place over half a week ago. CDE34RFV (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Halla's article is extremely short and election article needs more prose.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per PrinceofPunjab. One target's a stub and the other is almost bare of prose. The   Kip  (contribs) 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment -- this is not ITNR, no? Not head of the executive. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- since it's not ITNR and the President of Iceland has no actual power, I oppose posting this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of El Fasher
(talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Added altblurb mentioning the country. Most readers wouldn't know what country this was relevant to if the original blurb were used. Tube·of·Light 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Event is notable and has enough info and sources. NuestroBrasil (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, already covered by ongoing Sudanese civil war and its timeline. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, as it seems quite a notable moment in the ongoing civil war as a whole. I'll note, though, that the article I've just cited should be added to the blurb for further clarity, if we do publish it... Oltrepier (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support we posted massacres in Israel before (i think at least) so why not Sudan? Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of the October 7 one, which came right before the war (so not yet "covered by ongoing"). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They probably think that one. Also not to forget that we also nominated and posted the Geneina massacre. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I recall, the deaths in that one were based on more than the say-so of a radio caller, as the Kutum Hospital airstrike (currently) is. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * True. The Geneina massacre was caused by the Battle of Geneina itself and killed between 10 to 20,000 people. Not to forget that the blurb about El Fasher and the full nomination is talking about the ongoing offensive on the city and how it is affecting thousands of people. Furtherly, I think if this nomination does in fact get posted that we should expand the Kutum Hospital airstrike article. But for now let's keep it the way it currently is. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The part about the recent offensive talks about how it killed eleven people and wounded 42. I'm not seeing enough updated detail on these thousands of others (or anything at all about 2024 in the lead). Of course, there remain thousands who have been and are affected in myriad ways this whole time (including in El Fasher), but that much remains conveyed by the Ongoing item, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Battle is covered by ongoing, and the sourcing for the hospital airstrike is shaky anyways. The article is also in no shape to post. The   Kip  (contribs) 19:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Chang'e 6 landing
Article mentions landing but needs work. Prior nomination of Chang'e 6 to ITN consensus was to wait until landing. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but article needs some work. Mission profile section is a bit small and needs to be expanded.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability Obviously, the article needs some work which would help explain this event a bit more. Overall a great event to display on 'In the news'. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I was wondering how they knew that the landing was successful and the article explains that the Queqiao-2 relay satellite has been pre-positioned to maintain comms. So, the article is quite informative and and useful.  As it's ITN/R, we don't need notability votes. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support though would like to see more expansion of the article to match what we usually see on NASA or ESA missions. There was general consensus when the launch was nominated to wait until it reached the moon (and potentially on a successful return); that's this point. --M asem (t) 14:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The   Kip  (contribs) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose for now The “Overview” section doesn’t have enough references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kudos to for noticing that the mission has moved on and that, with sampling completed, the ascender stage has already taken off.  The effect was that we only reported the landing for just five minutes but now we're up-to-date. There's an interesting detail that the sample hole was left in the shape of the character zhong (中) and so China has engraved its initial on the surface of the Moon.  As this pictogram is based on a flagpole, this is literally symbolic.  We should see if there's a free picture of this or other shots from the surface.  Here's a video to start... Andrew🐉(talk) 06:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Philippe Leroy
French actor. May require additional references for this go through. – robertsky (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll try to go through and clean up the page as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the time being as filmography is unsourced.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 14:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

RD: Artur Chilingarov
Russian polar scientist and member of parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose awards section is unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 02:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) UEFA Champions League
Heatrave (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment – Added an ALT blurb based on 2023's blurb.  Sounder Bruce  21:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb but I think Madrid extending their record is worth mentioning as well Jbvann05  21:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comments 1. This is ITN/R, 2. Would it be possible to propose a combined altblurb that also mentions that women's Champions League? That final was on 25 May so still within the ITN window (Barcelona beat Lyon). Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once match summary is added Article just needs a match summary and post-match section to be added. I'd support the Women's CL final joining this if a summary were added there as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb I think it would look better for altblurb 3 if Carvajal was featured instead (more recent event + more famous), but altblurb 3 is good too Sharrdx (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 when ready women's' final looks ready but there is a rather short small summary on Men's final. When a longer summary is added, I will support it.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt3 (Updated nom re. ITN/R) – there's now a match summary at the Women's final article. There's also this image of Bonmatí there that can be used - probably start by posting one of Carvajal, but it's typical to rotate images after a while and it's a great photo, so can add the Bonmatí one to MP protection. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) – Marked as ready with the update to the men's final article. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support though I think we need to point out a minor technicality that may need to be discussed later. The UWCL isn't listed on WP:ITN/R so we may need to discuss that for future years in case they stop coinciding to do a dual nom. That being said, I support this nom but I do think ALT3 has a bit too much WP:OLINK and I also think we should only use the official names.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article is not MOS:ACCESS compliant at the moment, as it has tables within a table. I'm not sure why this happens every single year... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's no longer an issue on either final article. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. This is how sport articles should look like. Women's final is not ITNR but the article is good and a combined blurb is a good way to have both posted. --Tone 10:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a grammatical error. The links should be "wins" instead of "win" Jiaminglimjm (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, win is correct in British/European English. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colonel Dyck
Rhodesian and Zimbabwean Army soldier and mercenary group leader.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks alright to me.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 02:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support posting as Colonel Dyck which has a nice ring to it. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support using the common name. Aside from it being good enough for these past 34 months of his life, rank is among the things we can't take with us. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not bitter, but this nicknaming business may set a new Slippery Slope Standard. Could be a lot of weird ones slipping through (especially with musicians, criminals and wrestlers) and a lot of extra arguments about which nicknames are the weird ones. Hopefully I'm wrong! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The precidence has already been set as Kamala ran under his wrestling name and we ran Barry Chuckle under his stage name. I think as long as the nicknames are cited and they are used to commonly name someone, then I see no reason why we can't.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are common names, stage names and ring names, not nicknames. The article titles follow suit. What happened here would have been akin to posting Kamala as The Ugandan Giant. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A-ha. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Boeing Starliner
Nominator's comments: New to this process— may be short, but if someone could expand this, that would be great. TALK 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome here and thanks! I'm thinking a blurb that mentions it being a spacecraft used to resupply the ISS could be more informative maybe? Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the delay, wait and see if it's launched tomorrow. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whelp, launch got delayed again. Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wtf is happening at Boeing. How can it get this bad? This is like the 11th delay or something, it was originally scheduled for launch in 2017. What is going on PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Since the launch was sadly delayed, on procedural grounds I think this has to be closed at this time. No opposition to it being renominated at a later date when it eventually does get off the ground.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 16:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The C of E added alt version <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(67.5deg,silver,black);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">48JCL TALK  16:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, according to news reports it looks like they are going to try again in 24 hours or so. So on that basis I would say wait until we know more.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(67.5deg,silver,black);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">48JCL TALK  17:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait and I suggest closing this for now. Starliner has been repeatedly delayed. Let's wait until it actually launches. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry for the early ITN, the reason was because I was watching it live and the timer said 4 minutes until launch so I thought it would be appropriate for ITN. <span style="background-image:linear-gradient(67.5deg,silver,black);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">48JCL TALK  19:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, welcome to ITN! Johndavies837 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Tomorrow's launch attempt has been canceled as well. No launch until at least June 5 so there's no point in keeping this open. (Source) Johndavies837 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 South African general election
Nominator's comments: In addition in highlighting the ANC losing its majority, the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), led by former president Jacob Zuma, has also seen a rise in the polls. CastleFort1 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when ready: Although we're still waiting for the official results to get published, and the article needs to be updated with new information, I think there's no doubt about the ANC's loss of parliamentary majority being by far the biggest takeaway from this election, as well as a turning point in the modern history of South Africa. Oltrepier (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - Until official results and the composition of the National Assembly is finalised. However, last general election, did we wait to post when the president is actually elected by parliament or did we post the NA results? I would be in favour of posting both as this is the most significant election in South Africa since 1994, and basically the only election where one party hasn't been dominant since 1948. This is a big moment in South African history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment we need to phrase this the way we always phrase election results, to avoid seeming partisan. The blurbs above, which phrase it as The ANC loses... are not accurate - the ANC still won the election, only that they're short of a majority. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with this. After the number of seats are released, I will make a second alternate blurb to reflect it. It'll say that the ANC won the most in South Africa's election, but it will mention them losing their majority for the first time since the end of apartheid. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We could also write that the ANC won the plurality of votes but failed to get a majority. That could make it less ambiguous for readers. Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle BUT wait until the result is officially announced. I think the proposed wording is accurate but I do agree with the above that it should be something like ALT2 that I've just added as a possibility.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 16:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 once results are released, but it should be edited for grammar to "The African National Congress (ANC) wins South Africa's parliamentary election but loses its 30 year majority that it has held since the end of apartheid." PtolemyXV (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. A significant amount of unsourced statements and indeed a whole paragraph ("Preliminary candidate lists"). Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1, oppose Alt2 Alt1 best captures the significance of this electoral event for me. In principle I strongly oppose saying that a party that gets a plurality of seats "won an election" in ITN for parliamentary elections because it implies to anyone unfamiliar that that party will end up in power even if it isn't actually the case (e.g. Spain and Poland, where the plurality party failed to get into or lost power), although in this case it's moot because the ANC is expected to stay in power albeit while being forced to ally with another party. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, but wait until results are announced and information in the article is improved. I have proposed Alt3, which addresses the fact ANC wins a plurality, but not a majority. I used outright to indicate/clarify there is still room for them form a ruling coalition, and I see it being used in various sources. NPR, AlJazeera, Bloomberg via YahooNews. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt3 but there are some paragraphs ends without any footnotes.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 02:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 now that the results are fully in I feel that this is the best description of the situation. Scu ba (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality still a lot of unsourced statements. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2, oppose on quality per above. The   Kip  (contribs) 19:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AAIOUIUA An acronym is only useful if used afterward. If we're posting this, post it without the "(ANC)" (or use it afterward). Please and thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when ready: It should definitely get posted once all parts of the article are finished and have sources. Also, I Support Alt3. Opm581 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. The article seems to be in good shape, the only issues I spotted were a) some provinces have separate results tables while others don't; and b) the results map in the infobox needs updating. It would be simpler to just remove those until they're ready. If that's done, I support. At the risk of proliferating the blurb choice, I've adjusted alt3 to produce alt4, which I think is more neutral and uses less jargon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Issue b) has been fixed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Everything looks good to me, the regional elections could be spun off into a "2024 South African regional elections" article or something adjacent to that since they take up quite a bit of space but regardless it's quite thorough. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is good now as it is a historic election result. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now that it's in better shape; I like Alts 2, 3, and 4 for clarity, but Alt2 could use a copy edit for verb agreement: "The ANC wins [the election] but loses [their majority]" (instead of "wins but lose") ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: marking ready as it seems there is consensus to post. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)