Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 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.

Ongoing: War in Sudan (2023–present)

 * Support though we can't just list the main article, as it doesn't have enough updates. Instead, we should do what we did for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and list the timeline (which has daily updates), looking something like: War in Sudan (timeline). Gödel2200 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support timeline being added Lukt64 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support timeline being added since the updates are daily and include frequent events from March 25, 26, 27, and 28 most recently Fileyfood500 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Near daily updates to the article, and recent events added to the timeline from February and March 2024 Fileyfood500 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Fileyfood500 Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and list the timeline alongside. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Godel2200 (include timeline) Flipand Flopped  ツ 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Almost daily, huge sections are updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support idk why the ever took it down it’s still massive Ion.want.uu (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and include timeline. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There are no dates in the article beyond March 21. It only takes 50 edits to go back to March 14. The article must be updated with current events? Stephen 11:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't we do what we did with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? The Russian invasion of Ukraine article does not list many dates in March 2024, but that is fine as the Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) has daily updates. The situation is the same with the War in Sudan (2023-present) article, with the timeline getting near daily updates. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the last weeks that just seems to be a minor skirmish ticker, no significant events. Stephen 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some major events from the last few weeks include: RSF claiming capture of El Madina Arab (March 5), SLM-MM announcing it would fight the RSF/joining the conflict (March 24), SAF claiming capture of the Doha neighborhood in the city of Ondurman (March 26). Other days consist of airstrikes, vehicles destroyed, bridges being captured. Fileyfood500 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a lot of claims and very minor back and forth of low level conflict. Stephen 04:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In this light, I am unclear about what makes the other 4 conflicts shown more significant. I reviewed the timeline from March for the Russia-Ukraine war, and found 3 instances where a village was reported to be captured. I otherwise found many reports of airstrikes and drones being shot down, and reports of single digit casualties. There is no doubt, there are significantly more policy updates and financial announcements, and the arms being used/destroyed are more expensive, however, it's not clear to me that the wealth of the combatants should set the distinction here. Fileyfood500 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN isn’t an armed conflicts ticker. 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:106:C016:D59A:AA77 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the only major things ongoing are armed conflicts. Lukt64 (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make it a criteria. Ongoing is for when there is a continuous stream of blurb-worthy items; To me if we post this we might as well put up every other armed conflict. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is a whole civil war going on in the 15th largest country by area on the planet, so there's not much reason it shouldn't be up in the current event section. Asjhsz (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A very active conflict going on right now in one of the biggest countries in the world.  TomMasterReal  TALK 03:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, detailed entry, copiously sourced. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Up-to-date article receiving regular updates and still very much in the news. Looks like WP:SNOW support here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarifying that I specifically support the timeline proposal mentioned above by Gödel2200. Timeline of the War in Sudan (2023–present) is being updated much more frequently than the War in Sudan (2023–present) article.  Vanilla <b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There has been no content added since the article was nominated 5 days ago. This is not sufficient for ongoing. Stephen 10:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Checked the timeline, and there are 3 updates since 5 days ago. Updates from April 1, April 2, and April 3. Fileyfood500 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are edits, but not updates. Updates bring readers new information. Edits like these three (and my nine) just change the way they/we see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The updates to the timeline I see are:
 * April 1: First batch of food arrived from the World Food Program
 * April 2: Twelve people were killed and 30 injured in a drone attack in Atbara
 * April 3: The SAF launched airstrikes on the RSF 16th Infantry division
 * April 3 2nd update: Sudanese prosecutors file capital offense charges against the state
 * @InedibleHulk, these updates are in the timeline. Godel2000 pointed out that the timeline is where near daily conflict updates are reported, so the proposal under discussion is to have the timeline in parenthesis Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The main article needs updates too, as that timeline is literally a ticker of relatively minor events. Stephen 02:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what the distinction is between the events listed in the Russia-Ukraine timeline and this timeline that makes these events minor and the Russia-Ukraine events major? Both timelines show smaller battles, airstrikes, and dozens of casualties, and shifting battle lines around a handful of villages over the course of the last month. The technologies used in the conflicts are different (drones used heavily in Ukraine).
 * From what I see, both events are quite major. I know you've provided a lot of qualifiers, saying the events are minor, not significant, low level, can you be more specific in your arguments? I've provided examples of different events, and am unclear on the basis of your reasoning. Fileyfood500 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Per Stephen, limited updates for significant continuing events.  Spencer T• C 03:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Masalit massacres
Fileyfood500 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Well cited, and an ongoing genocide is absolutely what ITN is for.  Bremps  ...  06:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support a few more cites can't hurt, but looks good enough for ongoing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no recent news, not regularly updated, the last 50 edits go back to November last year. Some people need to educate themselves about what is needed for an article in ongoing. Stephen 07:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Stephen. If we were to post this, it should be combined with the War in Sudan ongoing item. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. The article does not mention any dates past January 2024, meaning this is not suitable for ongoing. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Ongoing should be for areas of the news that are getting near-daily coverage and updates (like the Ukraine/Russia war or the Gaza strip situation). Simply being a long running engagement doesn't meet the bar. --M asem (t) 13:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For this reason I’d also take off Myanmar until there are more developments 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:106:C016:D59A:AA77 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Myanmar civil war (2021-present) article is actually getting a lot of updates. See for example the Tenuous ceasefire and continued 2024 campaigns section, which lists many dates in March. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Masalit massacres, Support War in Sudan. Lukt64 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the War in Sudan (2023–present) article is getting frequent updates and encompasses this article. Fileyfood500 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There was not a single edit for a month prior to the nomination. We should only add those articles which gets updated regularly.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support War in Sudan (2023–present) per Fileyfood500 Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Delahunt
Former House of Representatives, from 1997 to 2011.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Well cited and notable. Article is in good shape too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: An expansive, well-cited article that does not appear to be biased by any means. However I would like to note that every Wikipedia biographical article is considered notable enough for RD; nominations are based on quality and quantity of articles instead. Jmanlucas (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not post bios with unreferenced date of birth.  Schwede 66  02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think that's an odd line to draw (is his DOB really controversial enough to need a citation?), but here you go – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DOB applies and whilst that is part of the Biographies of living persons policy, I assume that you are aware the BLP rules apply to people who recently died.  Schwede 66  02:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chance Perdomo
British actor. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape and notable too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Filmography needs sources as does his BAFTA nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * His BAFTA nomination is cited, and the filmography is completely cited in the career section. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article uses the term "accident", which is a loaded term. The first sentence of that article reads as such: An accident is an unintended, normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans. That is, by using the term, the article says that the traffic collision wasn't Perdomo's fault. This violates NPOV and needs editing before posting can be considered.  Schwede 66  02:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "accident" is not there anymore. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal : Red Sea crisis
Attacks have largely stopped. lukt64 (talk)


 * I believe this situation is still developing - see for instance.  Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still eventful. Article history shows almost daily additions of large sections. Maybe in a week or two, we can rethink. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article seems to be getting sufficient updates. It lists events taking place on 21, 24, 27, and 28 March, meaning it seems fine to leave it for now. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the crisis is still going on and the article is updated almost daily.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has frequent updates in March, including multiple events. Fileyfood500 17:52, 31, March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support largely out of the news. AryKun (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has had recent updates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Les Twentyman
Australian youth worker and community activist. The article could do with some work and more sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on multiple uncited paragraphs, but that could change.  Bremps  ...  11:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  for now. Notable, but like Bremps said, uncited sections present. Feel free to ping me if that's resolved. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ready Some excellent work has been done to update and properly source this article. I believe it is ready to post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, all unsourced issues done and finished! I did expand the lead a bit as well. Pinging and  for the update! :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 09:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Joachim Meyer
The last Minister of Culture of East Germany, and then for years Minister of Culture in Saxony in a unified Germany, and president of the Central Committee of German Catholics, originally a linguist teaching in Berlin. The article was mostly there, - I trimmed a bit: too much about general political development. Most of the many sources were still working. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like this is generally good enough to post. However, I’d note that it seems like the admins want to have the date of birth referenced in the article before they post an article to RD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That information was already in the sources but wasn't mentioned in the prose for some reason. I've added it so it's referenced now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Marked as "Ready". Flibirigit (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emilio Lora-Tamayo
Spanish physicist and president of the Spanish National Research Council. gobonobo + c 19:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't appear to have any problems. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support can be posted <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louis Gossett Jr.
<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose orange refimprove tag in article. Support article looks ready now! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Also the wrong article is linked. It should be Louis Gossett Jr.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just fixed the link to the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added references for everything that had a CN tag, if anyone doesn't mind taking a look. Estreyeria (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough now to me - Jayson (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose entire lead section is unreferenced. (Feel free to ping me when this is rectified) Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Support looks good. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aydoh8 Lead section doesn't necessarily need citations; see MOS:CITELEAD Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support-Article looks good now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, 867,628 pageviews <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN is not here to consider page views. We are here to present topics with quality articles that are in the news. M asem (t) 16:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was about to post but there are several items in the accolades section that are still unreferenced. --Tone 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I spent a lot of time trying to address your concern. awardsandwinnder.com had most of the listings.  Unfortunately, my prolonged effortst got thwarted twice.  By an "edit conflict" and my retry ended badly, too because that is a blacklisted website.  I give up.
 * We could simply get rid of that section, if that would help. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone had access to these books (I don't) I'm guessing the problem is easily solved.
 * <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or we could delete the section from this article, and move it to Louis Gossett Jr. on screen and stage. Problem solved. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's sweeping the problem under the rug. The filmography page was already separated off well before this no, but we should never move awards off the page just because they can't be sourced. M asem (t) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or you just selectively remove awards that cannot be sourced. If they cannot be sourced, notability of those awards may be so-so. Tone 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the unsourced awards do look barely notable, but things like the Daytime Emmys or the NAACP Image Awards are clearly notable awards that should not be removed for this reason. M asem (t) 16:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or you just selectively remove awards that cannot be sourced. If they cannot be sourced, notability of those awards may be so-so. Tone 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the unsourced awards do look barely notable, but things like the Daytime Emmys or the NAACP Image Awards are clearly notable awards that should not be removed for this reason. M asem (t) 16:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed the obviously non-notable awards, and one which appears to be wrong, but the NAACP Awards are a struggle - I've sourced one so far... even his 1998 win is beyond me at the moment, not helped by the fact the website doesn't appear to have any history pages. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There already is a source cited that documents the NAACP gave him awards. Doesn't go into much detail, but it is already there.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Awards moved Seems the awards previously in his bio were split to form List of awards and nominations received by Louis Gossett Jr.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh. We really shouldn't be creating a pointless extra article purely to get an article onto RD, I really wish people would stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The awards article is not "pointless" and is now cited. The biography article Louis Gossett Jr. is now completely updated and ready to go.  But the ball is in your court.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It 100% should be merged back into the main article, especially given there was no discussion prior to it being split. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "there was no discussion" goes against WP:BEBOLD, but one is free to merge it back if they have specific reasons.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly would move it back if it was completely sourced, but it isn't. It's still missing sources for the Daytime Emmies, most of the NAACP awards, and some CableACE awards (are they notable?). Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm down to two NAACP nominations. There's plenty of sources out there, but none of them are reliable. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen 7&6 provide a reason for doing so. The article is not so long, nor the section itself, to justify splitting. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support no maintenace tags on the article. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a cn tag in the section "1998–2024: Later works" and I've just added two more. I'm going to have another look at sourcing that awards article. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added one citation for "he provided the voice of Lucius Fox in The Batman animated series. [Lucius Fox in The Batman animated series" and removed the cn template. Deleted the "In 2008, he filmed the "Keep It Real" series of commercials for the Namibian lager Windhoek." which still would need a citation. All of the on line sources for that are wiki and fandom websites. I  don't think it can be sourced from a WP:RS.  So I think that it is unimportant, and deleted the unourced material.  I think that was all the CN templates in the article. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a citation for the beer commercial, and put it back. In 2008, he filmed the "Keep It Real" series of commercials for the Namibian lager Windhoek. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)thi
 * I did go to the three separate wikipedia articles on NAACP image awards. I took citations right out of those articles.  Two of them have citations that are now on the blacklist.  The third was not.

The third one worked. the first two did not, and you have to either go to the award wikipedia articles, or put in "https://" in front of the links. I could not save them otherwise.
 * ref name="Image1"//awardsandwinners.com/category/naacp-image-award/1998/|title=1998 Image Award Winners|website=Awards and Winners|access-date=August 2, 2016
 * ref name="Image 2"//awardsandwinners.com/category/naacp-image-award/2005/|title=2005 Image Award Winners|website=Awards and Winners|access-date=August 2, 2016}}
 * ref name=”Image 3"
 * I have tried diligently to find reliable sources. I know the complaints about IMDB.  And I've also been through the Awards and Winners blacklist recently on another article.  Holding up the main article because we are on a mission impossible for the awards article seem harsh to me.  The awards article is now split off.  We have a well plead article with 142 sources.  Lots of effort went into this, and one ought not to  punish Lou Gossett and his interested readers for the penurious reportage of these particular awards.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the past, the community has often expected material split after the death announcement to still be sourced, to avoid gaming the system merely to expedite posting. What we generally don't want is verifiable content that is useful to readers to be quickly deleted to get a Main Page posting. In this case though, it seems much of the unsourced material was actually added after the death (see my comment below), so there might have been more leeway to delete that unsourced contested material, if it was identified as such at the time. —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the RD process should not be construed as a "award" for the individual posted nor as a punishment for those not. It's as much an incentive for editors to colloaborate on a recent news topic and improve the page's quality. —Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * almost there - I actually like the awards split off. I see two citation tags, and believe that awards mentioned in the lead need some citation in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awards additions It seems the list was smaller but fully sourced until this edit at 18:49, 29 March 2024 by . At any rate, it seems to be mostly sourced now.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - A tip o’ the hat to the article improvers. Ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support the article is ready now, although it would look better if the "acting credits" and "Awards and nominations" section have some kind of prose.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ross J. Anderson
OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks well cited and notable for RD. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Four {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Henry
Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana from 2008 until his unfortunate death. The article needs work that I'll fix in the next few days. Thanks! :) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has a bunch of unreferenced sentences. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the article is now well-sourced, no unsourced issues remain. Pinging for the update! :) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 02:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Issues have been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Thomas Mensah
Heatrave (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Very weak oppose Only uncited parts are Corning Glass and education.  Bremps  ...  11:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Limpopo bus plunge
For precedents, see Carberry collision, Kenya crash, Epidemiology and List. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all purposes this is a unfortunate traffic accident that has been associated to fault of the driver. This is the type of stuff we cover in list articles, but not standalone ones per NEVENTS, and thus not really ITN material. M asem (t) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic event, but seemingly lacks any long-term impact 2A02:908:676:E640:99A1:1CB2:32ED:E1E6 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose No long-term impact, and local incidents like this are why we don't have a minimum death criterion. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provincial bus plunge per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is de-facto discrimination. If 45 people die after a bus falls off a bridge in the United States it would be ITN in hours. Lukt64 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I would also disagree with having a US bus plunge on ITN. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it is a road accident caused by only one fault (the driver) that is likely going to have little long term impact. This is exactly what NOTNEWS and NEVENT recommends from having standalone articles on. If it was a mutli-factor situation (such as a mega-car pileup) that might be something. But normal road-traffic accidents tend to not be topics that can be expanded on further.<span id="Masem:1711671290154:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's discrimination based upon what's typical for a country: if this was were in the USA but a mass shooting, this would never get ITN. But were it a mass shooting in any other country it would get on the front page within a few hours. This is because the former is shot down as "Oh, a tragedy, but all too common because it's a country where there are few to no safeguards against such a thing." The exact same logic is being applied here, but for some reason people get a lot more up in arms about it when the country in question isn't the USA. Nottheking (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is only 4 pages on bus crashes on South Africa. Lukt64 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If your intent was to argue that was evidence that bus crashes are rare in South Africa, that was a rather dubious selection. After all, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and thus won't record every single item of news. Rather, the fact that there's clearly a lot of crashes (a casual research pass suggests hundreds of fatal bus crashes every year, with one high-profile study showing 4,001 fatal crashes involving trucks & buses across a 5-year period) and yet only four received an article seems to be a very strong indication that such events... Are just not notable in South Africa. Nottheking (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to imagine a mass shooting in the US with 40+ deaths not being posted. In October 2023 we posted one with 19, and in 2022 we posted one with 10 (although there were racial/political elements increasing its notability). Jjamesryan (talk &#124; contribs) 13:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the 2018 New Jersey bus crash wasn't nominated, the 2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash wasn't nominated, the Schoharie limousine crash was nominated for AFD, voted keep, and still not posted. What was posted though was a 2023 bus plunge in Panama, 2020 bus plunge in China, 2018 in Hong Kong, and one I think last year in Italy that I can't find right now among many others. Your assertion then that "if this had happened in the United States", as is always the case when claiming "American bias" is in fact unsubstantiated horse shit utterly devoid of any basis in reality and contrary to the normative behavior at ITN which is to ruthlessly suppress stories from or about the United States in some hysterial and misguided effort to fight "systemic bias" despite that not appearing anywhere at WP:ITN. If you want to do something useful, maybe review the wall of forever wars in the WP:ONGOING section and nominate for removal those which no longer meet the criteria for inclusion. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the list of similar blurbs and articles in the past, this is very interesting and helpful for understanding precedent here. We've posted many more busplunges than I thought we had, and the death-count of this one is double many previous blurbs. I think your aggression towards Lukt64 is wholly unwarranted and unhelpful... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The outlier here is the Schoharie crash. I agree it probably should have been posted, but the New Jersey and Pennsylvania crashes had seven deaths between the two of them. They are simply not significant enough events to warrant posting. I have no hesitation in saying a crash with two casualties wouldn't have been posted no matter where in the world it happened. In fact, its occurrence in an English-speaking country is probably the only reason it has an article here. There's no sense in asserting anti-American bias because a non-American topic with 39 deaths was posted and an American article with 2 wasn't—and you were really quite disrespectful to an editor engaging in good faith while you were at it. Jjamesryan (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the first two didn't have as many deaths. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * May I add that this particular incident had a higher death toll than all of those you mentioned. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - That's a remarkably high death toll for a single-vehicle accident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The article does not indicate this will have a lasting impact. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the death toll is pretty significant for this news to be ignored.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose from what I've seen of it so far, it's been a tragic accident, but a comparative "blip" news-wise: no wider scandal or fallout, for instance. Instead, it appears to be the sad result of what (in this country) appears to be commonplace poorer safety standards, which result in accidents like these not being particularly noteworthy. (e.g, a bus was towing a trailer which would dramatically hinder its handling ability, making it unsafe for driving such dangerous mountain roads) To give an analogy, it's also why few mass shootings in the United States are given ITN treatment: particularly lax gun control laws in that country & the overall cultural environment make what would be a nation-defining tragedy in virtually any other country into a commonplace occurrence.
 * Note that were some of these elements to change (e.g, in the next day or two a major inquiry & public investigation gets touched off by the South African national government) then that could change the picture. But as it stands, there's no indication of that happening. Nottheking (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * CLOSED Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * RE-OPENED Sorry but half a day when there are multiple support votes and an ongoing discussion is way premature closing; we should let the discussion run its course at least and give a chance for editors to respond, discuss and other to have their say. I have re-opened as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think an blurb like this would live or die on the article's quality. It's an intense tragedy with a big impact on many people's lives in the region. However, I don't think the article has quite enough depth/length for a front-page feature right now. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support High death toll and international coverage. Anon has done a good job of showing precedent. Article looks fine to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I think the news is quite notable enough and should be included on the main page. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 17:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This is getting significant coverage. Government has indicated there will be further inquiry suggesting potential long-term impact. While the region has a poor traffic safety record, such large-scale incidents are uncommon. We blurbed the bus accident involving a hockey team in Canada a few years ago, so I don't see why we should not blurb this one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It's a notable accident with significant casualties and it's receiving some international coverage as well (fairly routine coverage, but enough). The article looks ok. I know some people will argue that they would also object if this happened in the U.S. but there's no doubt in my mind that this would get posted quickly. Less than a year ago we posted a bus crash in Canada with 15 deaths (which increased to 17 after posting). There was nothing particularly extraordinary about the Canadian bus crash, except for the fact that it happened in Canada. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Johndavies. The   Kip  21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support abnormal high amount of death. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Most news articles I've seen so far for this event (including those nom includes) mention the same things (as a result of the coverage being based off of AP and Reuters): how the crash occurred (including 8-year old girl who survived), some limited context (Easter celebrations, road safety in Africa), and government responses. None of the coverage I've seen goes into depth about any of those responses - in fact, there is only one article sourced in the article that breaks out of this pattern in its headline (once you click on that article, it goes back to the routine coverage). I believe this puts the coverage under routine, which per WP:DIVERSE decreases its notability.
 * Similar arguments can be made about the precedent cited in the comments for this nomination. However, precedent acts as a rule/guideline, and per IAR / WP:OTHER, if the precedent is making the project worse (by rotating tragic accidents that, while horrible, don't have long-term impact per Chaotic Enby), it ought not to be followed. I don't agree with the posting of some of the preceding articles either, in particular Carberry highway collision.
 * That being said, this is a horrific accident that definitely calls for reforms to be made to infrastructure in South Africa for safety. If this event sparks such reform, or otherwise leads to further action, I would support the nomination. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an extensive in-depth follow-up in the NYT: No One Can Explain This Miracle. The BBC shows forensic investigation.  So, while the many lesser news organisations are just repeating the wire story, the big ones are making more of it.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. A bus crash with an unusually high number of deaths, receiving an unusually high amount of international attention, and with some novel elements (that it was a religious pilgrimage, that there is a "miraculous" sole survivor). BD2412  T 17:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should not be posting stories because of those aspects (the religious pilgrimage or the sole survivor) as that's going along the lines of "won't someone think of the children"-begging rationale. Even if that's an aspect that the media focuses on, that's something we should be blind towards per NPOV policy. M asem (t) 19:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support per Lukt64. Although pointing out systemic racism on wikipedia can be uncomfortable, it needs to be called out. We posted Carberry highway collision and Humboldt Broncos bus crash with minimal opposition. Both of these crashes were very similar on the facts: driver error resulting in a mass casualty incident, resulting in devastation to the local community affected + widespread public sympathy in the news. Interestingly though, even despite this crash having *more* casualties, all of a sudden there is mass opposition at ITN and even an effort to snow close the nomination. From where I am standing, the only easily discernible & substantive difference separating this bus crash from those aforementioned is that as opposed to white westerners dying, here it was Black South Africans. There is no good excuse for this to miss out on a blurb. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have posted any of these, actually. Bus plunges, whether they happen in the West or in Africa, are not the most defining events in international news. I wasn't on ITN at the time to oppose the other two, but they shouldn't have been there either, and the fact that we posted a bus plunge 6 years ago doesn't mean we should keep posting them now. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is that we've become too lax on enforcing of NOTNEWS and NEVENT. Most land-based man-made traffic accidents like this will have little lasting effect because there's nothing to easily regulate or the like as there is with airlines, trains, or ships. But editors are rushing to create articles on every news event just because its in the news without the consideration if it will become an encyclopedic topic. We do have list articles that cover nearly every type of such events where these can be listed, but we don't need standalone articles on each of these, and by extension, feature in ITN. M asem (t) 19:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I respect your position that bus crashes generally should not go to ITN. I might even agree with you as a matter of general policy. With this being said, it is important not to put on colour blind glasses even as you make respectable higher-level arguments about the parameters of ITN - there's a reason for the sudden broader surge in opposition to this bus crash when there wasn't to the Canadian crashes I mentioned: subconscious bias/racism, even if unintentional. Given the overarching context and the fact that so many other bus crashes have been posted, it is highly questionable that we as a community would decide to draw the line in the sand here. To that end, I think torpedoing this nom would unnecessarily stoke perceptions of racial inequity on Wikipedia... something that would be harmful to our project generally. All just my humble opinion though. I appreciate both of your respectful responses. Cheers, <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with what's been said here. This is a drum I beat constantly, attempting to stem the tide of systemic bias, but it's usually just greeted with polite nods and somehow people don't even see how blinkered their worldviews actually are. For example, we blurbed Italian president Giorgio Napolitano's death (someone who wasn't even a national leader, given that the PM wields the power there), and ex-Canadian PM Brian Mulroney, there wasn't that much opposition, yet when Daniel arap Moi died - ruler of Kenya for almost a quarter of a century - my initial decision to post a blurb was met with an outcry and had to be pulled. And 10-year Tanzanian president Ali Hassan Mwinyi, again it was deemed that he almost certainly wasn't notable enough for a blurb. I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith, I just think we need to collectively open our minds a bit more than we have done up until now, and I'm extremely glad this story got posted, given the precedents of the other similar cases. It's important to remember that despite the editor base being overwhelmingly based in US/Europe/Australia etc, we're not just here to serve those communities, we're here for the global English community, and sometimes that means covering things that aren't deemed important enough in the Western media. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Late request for feedback This should have been called a 'crash' from the start regardless of nomination, as none of the reliable sources are calling it such (I went through each one) Please sound off on the talk page. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you might have missed the NYT article linked in the nomination: "8-Year-Old Survives Bus Plunge Off Bridge That Left 45 People Dead". Most of the other articles use the verb "plunge", not of all them use the word "crash". ---Sluzzelin talk  00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them are running with 'crash' and I didn't argue against 'plunge' Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I don't understand what you meant by "such" in "as none of the reliable sources are calling it such". I gathered it couldn't be "crash". What were you referring to? ---Sluzzelin talk  00:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the reliable sources are naming it as a 'crash' not 'accident' either in the headline or lede, and MOS says we should start with year, so 2024 xxxx crash Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact on clicking through to each, I can't find the word "accident" used at all in the first nine citations for the article, only crash or sometimes plunge. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand now. I didn't know you were referring to the article title. Sorry for adding to the confusion! ---Sluzzelin talk  01:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

RD: Larry Lloyd
Football player needs some work.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs a lot more refs. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Mukhtar Ansari
Indian Politican.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The article currently has emotive language which violates WP:NPOV. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Gilbey
--2A00:23EE:14E0:15A0:D9D4:EACA:4221:4590 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is short, but what is there is of sufficient quality to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Lieberman

 * Support. One section is tagged as relying on sources too close to the subject, but that is hardly the same as being unsourced. BD2412  T 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive, B-Class article of an extremely notable figure. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely notable figure in U.S. Politics. Article is of high enough quality as it is now for inclusion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Personal life section has several citation needed tags. Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Found sources for all outstanding citation needed tags in that section!  Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely a notable figure in American politics; article is not perfect but sufficiently ready for RD. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was considering posting this however, there is an orange tag in the DHS section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the orange tag in the DHS section and added diversified sources (NYT, Bloomberg). Assuming no other issues, I think article is ready for RD. Cheers, <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 02:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Flipandflopped There are a number of referencing gaps that I have tagged in the article. Having edited the page, alas I am now WP:INVOLVED, so I can't post the article once it has been improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too many dead refs. Just randomly wanted to check some refs. 2 of the first 3 refs are completely dead. I haven't checked the rest. Hard to determine the quality of the article when its statements can't be verified. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article quality meets threshold for posting Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 election and long running Senator and notable for being a key figure in many hot topic political issues in the 1990's and 2000's. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support He was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000 and was a long-serving senator who influenced major legislation like the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose His notability is not a requirement for him to be included in the RD, as it's already presumed by having an article on Wikipedia. Many CN tags and two subsections are orange-tagged. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's actually a very good article, and none of it is contentious, but desperately needs more sources in order to make it reliable. I added more "citation needed" tags. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 30/48 citation needed tags made since this post, but have to attend to other business now. Hopefully someone can pick up from here. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment   I've significantly updated the citations in the article. Let me know if it is good enough to post now or if I should add more citations.  Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Further to Staraction's comment, all citation needed tags are now resolved, either by the addition of citations, or by the removal of persistently uncitable claims to the talk page. BD2412  T 17:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. I see zero {cn} tags in this wikibio at this time. I still object to the bullet-points under Committee assignments for wikibios for US senators (prefer prose with more details on what they do and when), but I gave up on that a while ago. --PFHLai (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Daniel Kahneman

 * Nobel Prize winning author, psychologist and economist. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost there: very few statements lack a citation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * rather than discussing blurb or not, could we please have citations for at least two facts missing one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. You might want to add some tags to direct effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Martin, I hate tags. I saw two things:
 * "They would continue to publish together until the end of Tversky's life, but the period when Kahneman published almost exclusively with Tversky ended in 1983, when he published two papers with Anne Treisman, his wife since 1978."
 * Both paragraphs under "Focusing illusion" end without citation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I also saw the first and thought it would be self-evident from his list of publications. Maybe not. Those other paragraphs are worth a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So I repositioned the citations for "Focusing illusion" (although primary). Alas, the article has only a list of his books, not a full list of all his publications (I'm assuming that might be quite extensive). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but how is it self-edvident that she was his wife from a certain year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that bit not self evident from a list of publications, but the year is given in the infobox and in "Personal life" where it is sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This comes sooner. You could just duplicate the ref from personal, and had obliged to "have a ref at the end of each paragraph". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb when ready. Ktin (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is to be blurbed, there should be a clear section besides a few lines in the lede to explain why he was important though impact and or legacy. Just being awarded including a Nobel isn't sufficient for a blurb. M asem (t) 19:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If only we were to apply the same standard (last sentence) to the PM of Ruritania. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically blurb former PMs when they die either. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb I remember reading his work in school, especially his collaborations with Amos Tversky. That does not rise to the super-high level we need for a blurb. I think quality is sufficient for RD now, the few statements lacking citation don't need to hold this article up long. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD He was 90 and died in Parts Unknown from nothing of note. "Variants of utility" doesn't quite ring true to me, but it's footnoted and probably written for someone else. The two chunks in "Focusing illusion" could easily be deleted if backing them up with a reliable source or two proves difficult. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Old man dies. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, it doesnt rise to the level of significance for a blurb. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 02:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I find statements like Old man dies when used as a comment in a discussion like this, to be extremely disrespectful. Ktin (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When someone suggests a blurb that would relay exactly how old a man was when he died, it seems only fair to doubt the significance of that central fact. There's really nothing else to oppose. The age at death is the news item in question. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the blurb is the summary of the news item which is the death of the person. Age is additional information. Ktin (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's why it's in all the headlines provided above and why no such prior blurb has added a place or cause. I hope the small print means you're kidding. If not, maybe propose an ageless blurb that rather focuses on how the field of behavioural economics has been affected by the loss of its bedrock (or something RD can't say). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Small font because this conversation is irrelevant. Clearly you can think of a blurb which doesn’t include age. Go figure. Ktin (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a recent blurb that was about an old man dying. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's ever been a moment in the history of ITN when "we recently blurbed an old person's death" didn't ring true. Kurtis (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean old man Mulroney, yeah, quite unfortunate. He was 84. At least in that case, further information did appear for a week or so in his death section and funeral article. Kahneman's article doesn't even have a death section. We could link the whole article, in bold, with a photo and note of how old he was. But I don't think that update is ever going to tell a reader more, so there's really no point in following along. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you calling his death unfortunate or the fact it got blurbed? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Both (in different ways, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The current criteria for blurbing deaths allows for major figures in any domain. The question to ask is -- as someone who served as the bedrock of behavioral economics as a field of study, was Kahneman a major figure in this area. My thinking is yes. Ktin (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Certainly at the top of his field, one of the most influential economists of his time, and Nobel laureate. Also somewhat of a household name due to his bestselling book Thinking, Fast and Slow which encompasses much of his research. Davey2116 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, a blurb on this would be an embarrassment to the Main Page. The nominator should refrain from making blurb suggestions going forward. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not my suggestion. I'd say it was borderline. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it was your suggestion, and even if said suggestion would be "an embarrassment to the Main Page", that doesn't give anyone the right to cast aspersions against you or anyone else over a difference of opinion. Kurtis (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll just make blurb suggestions going backwards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as long as you're okay with receiving credit in a future that never comes. Kurtis (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Should make RD a lot more prdictable and won't take me a minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as a blurb has been receiving at least a modicum of support, I'd say it's not an unreasonable proposal. Kurtis (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, am tempted to change my mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Great thinker and theorist, but not really for a blurb. I included insights from the prospect theory in my master thesis some ten years ago, and the true brain who delivered that theory was Amos Tversky. Not to belittle Kahneman's work, but he came up with ideas regarding cognitive biases that Tversky managed to mathematicise and bring to the general audience. Moreover, his contributions to behavioural economics are not seminal enough as John Forbes Nash Jr's contributions to game theory (in fact, the cornerstone in behavioural economics that most other theories descend from is the bounded rationality, and the real equivalent to Nash in behavioural economics would be Herbert A. Simon). There are also other psychologists who independently developed mainstream theories with wide applications to economics, such as Gerd Gigerenzer with his work on heuristics, so Kahneman's work isn't really a starting point for anyone working in the field. That being said, the statements that he was on top of economics as a field are quite wide off the mark.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Just running his name alone in RD would be insufficient and the article seems quite comprehensive and worthy. The bottom blurb which would be replaced is two weeks old now and so is stale. It's also less interesting -- just another routine election. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The few expansions of the past 24 hours have been nice, but I do believe we need more expansion on this article before a blurb is appropriate. In particular, I think more details on his later life and death would be necessary for a blurb. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I do not think this is blurb worthy as I believe we should only blurb when the death is notable enough.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there anything pending for this article to go to RD? Please can someone tag / annotate accordingly if there are any editor actions needed? Ktin (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 has asked for all items in the Notable contributions section to be given sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bit of an overkill to add references to that section. Should ideally be treated like the "See also" section. Nevertheless, I went ahead and added references to that section. So, we should be good there now. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. If we have to explain who the person is in the blurb, they really shouldn't be blurbed. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a serving head of state or government and the manner of the death is not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb His death was not notable in and of itself, and there is only a two sentence update about it on his page. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brigid Kelly
American politician in Ohio. -- Blaylockjam10 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2024 March 30 (UTC)


 * The stubby wikibio currently has only 260 words of prose. The coverage of her political career seems to end at her election victory in becoming a member of the Ohio state legislature, with no info on what she did while in office, nor what she did afterwards (the intro mentions her becoming a county auditor...) and before she died. Please expand this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is feeble; sourcing is too. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve expanded the article. Could you take another look at it? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Slađana Milošević
Likely well sourced. 240F:7A:6253:1:74BA:3EEC:4DCE:E68A (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Serra
American sculptor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. A solid B-class article on a major figure. The "Collections" and "Awards" sections have an improperly formatted citation that goes to a dead PDF, and it's not clear why some of the images of his work are fair use while others are not (perhaps that just reflects different freedom of panorama rules for sculptures in different countries), but I do not see these as blocking issues. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Sdkb. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Well-developed article.  interesting. Lots of sources.  No visible gaps.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – robertsky (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Swami Smaranananda
Hindu Monk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse
Major US bridge collapse. Potential for a high number of casualties. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait unlikely to not be a mass casualty event, but article is too short at the moment and information is lacking. Juxlos (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Breaking news. The target article is disputed so ITN can help with navigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I closed the merge proposal as it was getting no support. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; article needs to be fleshed out. Queen of  Hearts 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt1 is good, but needs work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 since it links to the reasonably developed article on the bridge itself. The collapse article is under construction. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait – Both articles are in rough shape and the situation is still developing.  Sounder Bruce  08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once it's ready. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose No fatalities have been reported so far. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Human lives are not the price demanded by an ITN.--Jasper Deng (talk)
 * There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN should not depend on fatalities. It should depend on how widely covered it is. Also, a disaster can be a disaster without fatalities. For example, ITN posted the Norfolk Southern train derailment back in February 23, 2023. No one died in that event. Djprasadian (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thankfully no deaths, so doesn't rise to the bar of an ITN entry for a disaster. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving to support per below. I guess the infrastructure angle is interesting and newsworthy too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning support - but it is certainly instructive to see how people vote and argue on this topic, compared to similar cases elsewhere in the world. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN has posted several bridges elsewhere such as India and Turkey in 2022. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, and while I'd rather not see this feed run entirely on precedents, those are relevant points in favour of posting. But there is nonetheless a persistent strain of argument from various quarters that diminishes mass casualty events outside Europe and North America. In this case, all I'm arguing for is modest caution. This is a developing story, and it's likely to be posted for good reason. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One of those had 100 deaths and the other was the world's longest suspension bridge. No opinion on this nom, but those aren't good comparisons. AryKun (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You might equally say that one was just a footbridge and the other had no deaths. The best comparison is with the current bottom blurb which would be replaced by this one.  That's the Portuguese election which was over two weeks ago and so is longer in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't care if it was a cartoon log over a canyon that collapsed if the number of deaths was 135 in this instance. Great job entering a discussion where people are talking about arguments that diminish "mass casualty events outside Europe and North America" and doing exactly that. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the talk page analysis, there's a table of noms. This currently lists 10 disasters/natural disasters.  Six of these were in South Asia but none at all in Europe or the US.  So, this is the first US one that we've had for a while. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * South Asia has roughly six times the US's population and way more creaky infrastructure, it obviously has more mass casualty events. Just because American newspapers tend to feature American and non-American events as their headline about the same number of times doesn't mean that the US is magically as important as the rest of the world combined. My comment above was specifically about your "just a footbridge" comment; if 135 people died in the Anglosphere because they sank into the sidewalk, you wouldn't be making the same flippant remarks. AryKun (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Further discussion continues at another bridge incident: Limpopo bus plunge. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Significant destruction of a major engineering structure with international coverage. Alt1 preferred but either are ok. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is awful. Likely 20 people have fallen in the water and at this point they have likely died of hypothermia. It's horrible. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - major story which has been given a dedicated live feed on BBC, and with 20+ people missing it's just as presumptuous for us to assume there are no deaths as it is for us to assume there are. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet when twenty people are confirmed dead in a transportation accident in the Global South, the usual suspects turn up here with tired arguments about 'bus plunges'. I'm leaning more and more in favour of this story being posted - but let's not kid ourselves that ITN !voters treat all such cases fairly. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's to miss the key thing being noted, which is how atypical such an event is. When striving to take efforts to avoid being tunnel-visioned, one would notice (for instance) that a mass shooting event rarely makes ITN... If it occurred in the United States. However, mass shootings elsewhere on the globe very readily get posted, because they are unusual for those countries. So to prescribe one effect as purely one form of bias is to ignore the reality of the broader picture. Nottheking (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. It's certainly not my intention to claim this is a universal problem with a single right solution. I would just like to see some fairness. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This is definitely a very unusual disaster of high encyclopedic value which sends a clear message that the infrastructure built in the 1970s may not be sufficient to accommodate the current transport needs carried on the modern watercraft.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: it is now clear that this is a major event, and the article is good enough to stand on the front page given the high value of putting the event there. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is only going to improve and this is very clearly ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. A major and unusual infrastructure disaster, the artticle is in good enough shape already. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Major piece of infrastructure involved, completely destroyed, and making world headlines. 108.7.44.20 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Highly unusual event that is receiving widespread global news coverage. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 12:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability due to the extreme abnormality of this event. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Abnormal, outstanding event. Article is good. -Bedivere (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Good job on the article, and the international press coverage shows there may be an effect on commerce. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Not only is the impact on shipping and traffic notable, the media seems to be taking this by storm. Gøøse060 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, Event is notable despite lack of major casualties, Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Major infrastructure collapse. Biggest headline on CNN and BBC. Djprasadian (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support fucking crazy shit Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt 1.   Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just found out Commons is firewalled at my location's network, so any sysop please feel free to copy over the image, protect, and change to the bridge. Thanks.
 * Courcelles (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You beat me to posting. I've added two bridge images to the protection page. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing the posting, but MUST comment on the international coverage. I'm in Australia. Our media LOVES content from the USA, and LOVES dramatic imagery. This was a certainty to get coverage in Australia's news. That doesn't make it more important than a less dramatic and more deadly event, of which we have no pics, in a third world country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can only report on what it is given. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must always be vigilant to not allow its systemic biases to get in the way of balanced reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can an admin change the image on the mainpage to FBI Evidence Response Team Key Bridge.webp? It illustrates the disaster better.  Bremps  ...  23:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Add it to the image protection queue (see navbox at top of page) and give a bot about an hour to apply protection. M asem (t) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't; I don't have enough permissions to edit that page.
 * Or was that an instruction to an admin?  Bremps  ...  23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the image prot. page is admin protected, and couldn't easily edit it from my phone. The image has since been added and protected, and I have swapped the photo.<span id="Masem:1711513731023:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 04:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support per above. Six people are presumed dead in this bridge collapse. Davey2116 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question: should the (presumed) 6 fatalities now be added to the blurb? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added. Jbvann05  19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, this could be asked at WP:ERRORS for a faster response. Natg 19 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's best asked here, it's already been removed from Errors as it's a change to an existing blurb. I personally don't see the need to mention deaths as that number is not something that would normally drive a posting. Stephen 05:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stephen. In the big scheme of things, the fatalities are not what makes this event notable. Therefore, it's not necessary to expand the blurb for this.  Schwede 66  07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thirded, Stephen and Schwede. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elisabeth Guttenberger
Romani Holocaust survivor and human rights activist. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support from my perfunctory review, the article is pretty well-sourced & good enough for ITN ❤History  Theorist❤  01:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Reviewers needed) RD: Ian Heads
Australian historian, journalist, commentator and author. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Aspects of the intro aren’t discussed in the body of the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Reviewers needed) RD: Claude Alphandéry
Needs Expansion. Thriley (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - has not been expanded given the time that has lapsed. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Wall
Scientist.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2 cn tags, one of them being an entire paragraph without a source and the other being the majority of a paragraph. Also some info in Awards and honors and other activities sections lacking sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is well-sourced now, or at least very close. @ could you take another look? gobonobo  + c 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article looks fine now. Support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references now. Good job gobonobo! Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Günther Leib
Internationally performing baritone, whose death (on 3 March) was entered here only yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support everything looks well sourced and ready to go. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Senegalese presidential election
Rival candidates have conceded defeat meaning Faye has won BastianMAT (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I just saw this on NDR's Tagesschau. ITN/R, so if the article is in decent condition, this should go ahead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Massive feat in Senegalese history. Jebiguess (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be fully sourced. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good and sourced. Terminator46man (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems well-written and well-sourced, marking as Ready. The   Kip  18:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Update The associated picture does not reflect the image of the elected President Heatrave (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull. Still very limited results in the article (.3% reporting) and the article states the results are not finalized yet. I believe this posting was a tad premature. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Results aren't finalized, but the opposition has conceded defeat and the election is widely reported as a Faye victory. DecafPotato (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Very few of the articles I've read state that he's won, more that he's "projected to", "likely to" or is "expected to" win. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again: The opposition has conceded, as has been widely reported in reliable sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Projected to" is generally the bar we use or, more specifically, the fact that reliable sources are calling it. In the US presidential election of 2020, the opposition rather notably did not concede the election, but we still posted once reliable sources projected the win for the Democratic candidate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not arguing that we should only post when the opposition concedes. But when it comes to assessing reliable sources for who has won the election, the defeated party saying they're defeated is pretty significant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What exactly is going on? Conceding an election with .3% reporting is bizarre. Is there any more context we can give in the blurb?  Bremps  ...  17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Incumbent APR party was extremely unpopular due to some pretty blatant corruption, and opposition candidate Faye had some big endorsements, so it was already expected that he was going to win by a landslide. Election was free and fair keeping up with Senegal's strong democratic traditions, nothing unusual here. Curbon7 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) UNSC ceasefire resolution
First UNSC res to pass for ceasefire. US abstained. Big news story. Israel won't send delegation, deepening rift in relations. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment would rather wait to see if both sides actually abide by this. The UNSC can call for a ceasefire but that's got little enforcement weight behind it. -M asem (t) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is unlikely for it to actually happen, but support if it does happen Ion.want.uu (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose We already have an entry for Gaza in Ongoing and there have been repeated hostage and ceasefire proposals before. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I can tell, this resolution won't necessarily have any real effects for getting a ceasefire. Of course, if a ceasefire actually happens, then that would be notable enough. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by ongoing. The   Kip  18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by Ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Imogen Stuart
Notable German–Irish sculptor who died aged 96 leaving behind a significant body of work. Page as is is cited, but does need some more expansion which am still working on...will take a day or two. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article is well-cited and looks ready to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has three citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks...resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I see no issues remaining. Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marjorie Perloff
Noted Poet.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Anyone interested in beefing up the single-sentence intro in this wikibio? --PFHLai (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references now that the intro’s been expanded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judith Hemmendinger
Centenarian psychologist who helped children survivors of the Holocaust. Found article in fine shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Can someone who can read Hebrew confirm the date of death in the source, please? I cannot find the date of death in the Google-translated version or the online English version. Is there an English source for the date of death? --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just found this in English, - will add to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Added, but when I wanted to look if there were details we didn't have yet, I was offered a free trial procedure which I'd like to avoid. I am sure I saw the date at the bottom before that happened. Good luck with the rest, anybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. The Telegraph works. The date of death is now confirmed. Hopefully, someone with access can read and add any materials later. With more than 1000 words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. No glaring gaps in coverage of the subject's life. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found no problems. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I didn't go into much depth in reviewing, but the article looks good enough for ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Takerufuji Mikiya
Rare feat in an ancient sport like sumo, although the tournament was won on March 24. Potentially complicated but at least worth discussing. OtharLuin (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately not ITN/R and not really that notable to be ITN-material. TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whilst a notable achievement, this doesn't really stand out overall. Our usual ITN story for sumo is the promotion of a new yokozuna. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Not being ITN/R is a plus as that means it's not routine. And it seems to be a once-in-a-century record.  It's also a non-Anglo sport which provides some diversity. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as trivia. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it is important. If he rises to the top of sumo (by becoming yokozuna) then we'll post that. One tournament along the way isn't suitable. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Once-in-a-century achievement, and a good quality article. Would make a refreshing change to highlight something like this at ITN. That there is an ITN/R entry for sumo doesn't preclude us from posting something different once in a while. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is a rare achievement, but he hasn't become the top of sumo yet. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The oppose votes here seem very circular and gatekeep-y to me. We should not post this to ITN as this is not the kind of thing we post at ITN. In what way does this not meet our purpose? A recent event, getting wide coverage in the media, leading to a substantial, quality update to the encyclopedia. Let me put it this way: would posting this story help or hurt the project? It's a no-brainer.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the essence of this story is an athlete happening to win a major championship the first time they participated in that. That sounds like a happenstance and does not reflect on a career-spanning achievement, which would be a better story for ITN' s purpose. M asem (t) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most people are destined to die, yet their death is recorded in ITN. I honestly don't see why achieving a feat that hasn't been seen for a century should be disqualifying just because an athlete is doing his job... and on the subject of "career-spanning achievement", I think that, on the contrary, people now remember Takeruufuji precisely because he achieved this performance. - OtharLuin (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Their death is recorded on ITN at the bottom of template in a smaller subsection with a bunch of other names, not at the big list of news that prominently sticks out and you read first, where the target article is bolded and highlighted in an entire sentence amongst the other news. Comparing this blurb nomination to an RD is not right. 2001:4651:F168:0:F55B:64A8:3A9C:A50A (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivia.  nableezy  - 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Kuriga kidnapping
 Bremps  ...  23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The initial kidnapping apparently flew under the radar, but the release is probably also ITN-worthy. A BBC piece (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68649221) states that the army contested the number of students released (137 instead of 280), but I cannot find this information elsewhere.  Bremps  ...  23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Would also appreciate an altblurb because I apparently suck at writing these things  Bremps  ...  23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability due to the scale of the event being larger than many of the previous kidnappings in the Nigerian bandit conflict. Oppose on quality due to the article being a stub, and having multiple statements in the infobox unsupported elsewhere. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Abbey (NASA)
A list of sources is provided. Help is needed to place more citations inline. Flibirigit (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't this be George Abbey (engineer)? Bit weird to have a disambiguation after an employer, even if it's a notable one. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He was notable for being a NASA administrator and his work in US Air Force. I found no notability at all for his work as an engineer. Please see the article's talk page for a previous discussion on his disambiguation qualifier. Flibirigit (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wholly separate from this at ITN, there should be a review of that approach for other NASA staff. That is very atypical of how biographical articles should be disambiguated, which should use their primary occupation (in this case "engineer"). That he worked for NASA would be captured by search matches and the disamguation page.<span id="Masem:1711836469876:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 22:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment sad to see that he just died. Will get to sourcing work after I complete some schoolwork. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No {cn} tags remaining. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alright, it looks pretty much ready. I will note that there are some holes in the article related to some of his more controversial deeds but that shouldn't stop it from appearing at ITN. I will look into doing more serious expansion soon, although real life might postpone that. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , you made significant updates to the article. The review needs to come from an uninvolved editor. Flibirigit (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. I still stand by what I say though. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally support since it seems to have enough details & references for posting, but I’m curious about the holes mentioned by . Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have to do a bit more research on this as I'm not sure I have a complete understanding of the situation, but there seems to be complaints about him creating a toxic workplace and showing favoritism and that he would fire those who disagreed with him (among other problems). This Washington Post article seems to offer the most scathing criticism and the books I've read (namely The New Guys by Meredith Baby) seem to highlight flaws in his leadership.
 * note: the external link leads to ProQuest so I don't know if you'll have access ❤History  Theorist❤  23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. We can always add more stuff -- with sources! -- to the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Péter Eötvös
Hungarian composer, conductor and teacher. 240F:7A:6253:1:54D8:C475:B710:FFE (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It needs much more updating, especially inline citations. Will look later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, quite a lot of unsourced content. Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I said the same just above, please help or wait instead. I can't help an IP nominating before anything is close to being ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Suonii180 and others, please look again now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The works section still has a maintenance tag and the majority of the list is still unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Suonii180, the works are sourced to the publishers, mainly Schott, on top of the section. The maintenance says that one user thinks the list is too detailed. You others: do you think the same? Then I'll split it off. (I did that once before, only to have someone else bring the works back after a while). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The (sourced) works are now - thanks to Amitchell125 - in a separate article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage; solid work on improving the references.  Spencer T• C 08:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting, the article looks in a good shape now. --Tone 09:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) McDonald's closed in Sri Lanka

 * Oppose Minor business news, which we normally don't post. --M asem (t) 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above --- Rockin  Jack  18  02:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Also ITN requires a dedicated article. Natg 19 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not true, it requires (outside of RDs) a significant update to an article. Whether thats a new one or an existing one, it just must be significant.<span id="Masem:1711338830454:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 03:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per above. Far too minor for ITN. The   Kip  05:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Heatrave (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Amaechi Muonagor
Heatrave (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Career section needs expansion; filmography needs refs.  Spencer T• C 08:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Brigitte García
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Microplastic Consumer (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment is she even notable? This seems like a case of WP:1E to me, as she wasn't notable whilst alive (mayor of a town of 10,000 people doesn't make someone notable), but all the coverage is of her death. Seems like this article should probably be at Killing of Brigitte García as it's focused on the event and not the biography. Either way, most of the biographical details like date of birth are unsourced, and the article is too short to be considered as meeting WP:ITNQUALITY. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not notable. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment have started an AFD on this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Simon Harris (politician) in the 2024 Fine Gael leadership election
Mentioned in the "Fine Gael leadership" section of Simon Harris (politician) as well. There may be a better article more suited for this nomination, and the article likely needs more updates. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until he formally becomes the Taoiseach. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per Gödel2200. I've also added an altblurb to more accurately reflect when the time comes around. TwistedAxe   [contact]  14:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like the change in power will not occur until April 9, so wait until then. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure if the altblurb works. Leo V. is not currently the youngest taoiseach. Perhaps omit Leo V. from the blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken LV was the youngest taoiseach when he gained the office, so it works, but the main blurb is better. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support main blurb, altblurb is a bit clumsy. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hold until Harris becomes PM This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until he becomes Taoiseach, as per Gödel2200. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait. Even though it's likely he will become the Taoiseach, it still has to go to a vote of the Dáil Éireann and then be appointed by the President. Only then should it be ITN Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eli Noyes
U.S. stop motion animator. gobonobo + c 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now The filmography needs a few more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the items in the filmography that were unsourced until we can find references for them. gobonobo  + c 00:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shahryar Khan
Diplomat and former chairman of PCB. Ktin (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be of good quality. -- Fahads1982 talk / contrib 20:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Close; a couple CN tags remain.  Spencer T• C 05:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added references and removed the CN tags. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurizio Pollini
Notable pianist.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * added MONTENSEM and myself to updaters, will look again later - needs more work --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * one step further: now everything is sourced. There should be still more (recordings, reviews), but the next giant died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RIP a great pianist. Davey2116 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Angelos
Needs work. Will be worked on. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Should be fine now? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support All statements have been sourced. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Weak Oppose due to two unsourced statements in the infobox, but besides for that, the article looks good. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Laurent de Brunhoff
Author of the Babar the Elephant series since 1941. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 18:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bibliography needs refs or ISBNs.  Spencer T• C 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Prose needs more footnotes, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is nowhere near ready.  Schwede 66  17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Partha Sarathi Deb
Veteran Bengali actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:A148:57EA:9AF:7A84 (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This stubby new wikibio currently has only 188 words of prose. Please expand it to start class and add more REFs as required. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No edits after 4 days. Time running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Catherine Princess of Wales announces cancer diagnosis
It isn't often a Princess announces a personal matter like this. Urbanracer34 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barring a terminal condition, this is not the type of news we feature at ITN. Further, there's been issues with BLP around how we've covered her disappearance and that's something that needs to be cleaned up before we'd even feature her article on the main page <span id="Masem:1711152814166:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 00:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia does not cover celebrity news, and certainly not simple medical diagnosis. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The announcement of a medical condition is not ITN level news. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We didn't do it for Charles (same nom) and we shouldn't do it for Kate. Brycehughes (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * support sorry but i think this was closed prematurely after only 4 votes. this page is supposed to represent what's in the news, and her cancer story is number 1 news everywhere. not just on lower class news outlets like TMZ and such but on nyt and wapo and wsj as well, and on all 3 it's the most read piece of news even above that russian terrorist attack. Kasperquickly (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a celebrity news site. A royal announcing they have an illness is absolutely not the level of international importance to warrant ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Crocus City Hall attack
Developing situation - article likely needs more work as events unfold. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Maybe mention ISIS in the blurb as they have just claimed responsibility Prodrummer619 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed your nom, as Staraction was slightly faster in nominating. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability due to the scale of the event, though the article will need a lot of work before posting. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, although, yeah, it'll need improvement. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * nb. over 130 people were injured, not killed. article says over 40 were killed. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * corrected - thank you! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability as per above. 209.147.23.77 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. A terrorist attack with such a death toll is certainly notable. However, there are very little details in reliable sources, so it may take some time until the article is expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability though the correct death toll (at least from articles I've seen on the topic) is 40 not 140, though this is still breaking news and English-language info on the subject is still sparse so we can reasonably expect figures to fluctuate for a little while as more news comes out. Horribly shocking tragedy no matter what figure is correct. As for quality, the article is being developed rapidly and changes every time I refresh. Last I checked it didn't look like it was missing any sources, but it's still stubby due to the limited info available at this time. Support posting once expanded. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability There are several people working on this currently, so I have no doubt that it'll be as current as sources allow and should be ready for ITN in time. <b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#fc1008">Commissar</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Doggo</b><sup style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Talk?  19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is ready. The Moose  19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once it's ready. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I've boldly added some people I've seen updating the article in the history to the "updaters" section, although I'm sure I've missed some. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 19:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable, the high death toll and the rarity of such an event occurring in Russia definitely makes this ITN-worthy once ready. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - should blurb reference Krasnogorsk, Moscow Oblast, Moscow, or some combination of the three? Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say something like at the Crocus City Hall in Krasnogorsk, a city outside Moscow or just at the Crocus City Hall near Moscow. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've opted for the latter - thank you !! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Krasnogorsk, Russia. If this happened in the US or UK, we'd say in Gaithersburg, United States or in Watford, United Kingdom, never just "near Washington" or "near London".  If someone wants to know where in Russia that is, that's what we have an encyclopedia for. —Cryptic 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * changed as such, thank you! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Watford and Gaithersburg are administratively separate from those cities (Watford being part of Hertfordshire County, not London region; Gaithersburg in Maryland, not the District of Columbia). In contrast, Krasnogorsk is a part of Moscow Oblast, and as per COMMONNAME an overwhelming amount of sources describe the attack as taking place in Moscow, best to reflect it as such (important to show that this didn't happen in an unremarkable town in the vastness of Russia but right in the heart of the country). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, needs a little more work but overall very good. Occidental&#78685;Phantasmagoria   [ T/C] 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose using image until public domain / CC images of the actual incident are available Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very unlikely that we can get PD images of the event as it happens, and further being in Russia. We never require free images of events in progress, though if we can, hey great. However, we can use a PD image of the city hall from 2013 as I've added.<span id="Masem:1711145481364:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Stephen Could you update the death tool and image? Prodrummer619 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ron Harper (actor)
Needs Expansion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Only 262 words of prose, much of it unsourced. The intro has only a single sentence. The Television series section is a just list of bullet-points with no sources. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. Time is running out for this nom, though. --PFHLai (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Markus Jooste
Looks to be in good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be of good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks in good shape to me.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment A majority of the article appears to be about the legal issues surrounding Steinhoff International, which probably belongs in that article rather than this one. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Frédéric Mitterrand
Needs a little bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This nom does not seem to be ready for RD yet. The Biography section has 2 {cn} tags. The Filmography and the Publications sections need more referencing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Vaughan Gething as First Minister of Wales
This bit of news seemingly went under the radar, but I think it's still relevant, given that Gething is now the first Black politician to lead the government of a European country (if we count each part of the UK separately). Oltrepier (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is of international importance, sorry. Wales is not really an independent country in that sense and it's not even made front page news in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a sovereign state and race should be irrelevant unless you're a racist. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The UK naming their subdivisions "countries" just makes this misleading. He is not the leader of a sovereign state, so making the comparison by saying "of any European countries" on a technicality doesn't really make sense. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Subdivisions of the UK are countries in their own right, Wales is a country. It's just not fully sovereign nor independent. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per above, saying he is the first black person to be the leader of a European country is misleading, as Wales is not a sovereign state. And because this is not the appointment for a sovereign state, I don't think it is ITN worthy. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose See List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom for a long list of prior cases, not least Disraeli and Sunak. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be racist of me to point out how those ethnic minorities aren't black people? If so, nevermind. If not, think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per above. Changes in sub-national (sovereign) political offices almost never get blurbed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...until somebody can convince me that the colour of his skin matters here. I was not aware that Wales was the kind of place where people discriminated on the basis of such trivial differences between people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as subnational. The   Kip  00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Timothy Hayward
Death reported 20 March. Thriley (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I would argue that the article isn't "of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page". Most of the article is developed from a single obituary. As the person who expanded the article from the obituary, I couldn't find many other sources, though they may be available through newspaper archives. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work. I thought I’d nominate it now and expand it in the next day or so when I have more time. Best, Thriley (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This new wikibio is eligible for RD for a few more days. Lots of time for anyone who saw this nom here to make it "of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page". Happy editing, folks! --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Still only at four sources, but all major events of his life are covered and the article is reasonably long.  Bremps  ...  17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks ready to post. Thriley (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comments: This is a rather short wikibio with barely over 300 words of prose. Anything else to add? Not sure his keeping a few dogs is encyclopedic materials. The current coverage of his career is rather thin, resembling a CV in prose format, and does not indicate what he did in each of his jobs. The intro mentions that he was an advisor to Jim Douglas, but there is no mention of this Douglas in the main prose. He was involved in local politics, but there is no indication where this "local" refers to, presumably somewhere in Vermont. He was a one-term member of the state legislature -- where was his constituency? how did he do in the elections? What makes this person notable enough to get a wikibio? Presumably because he was a member of the state legislature, but then, there is too little info on that part of his career on this wikipage. This wikibio needs to beef up a bit before it can get my support for an appearance on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Kellock
Solid shape. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Two {cn} tags remaining. Almost there! --PFHLai (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Both {cn} tags have been edited away. --PFHLai (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Greenfield
Good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Good shape, indeed. One {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That sentence with the {cn} tag has been rewritten with two new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Alfred M. Gray Jr.
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks well sourced. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are currently about 6 {cn} tags in the prose. The Awards section and multiple bullet-points in the Later life section need sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vernor Vinge
3-time Hugo Award winning science fiction author. 2600:1700:38D0:2870:4016:E457:AF41:8BD4 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A significant prophet of the singularity. Now that AI LLMs have digested Wikipedia and the rest of the world's corpus, we start to see this taking shape.  The article could use more about his academic career but it appears that he was more of a teacher than a researcher and it's not what he was famous for. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As well as being a very misleading characterisation of the field, this is obviously against WP:CRYSTAL from someone who ought to know better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom but I don’t agree with Andrew Davidson’s comments and I will refrain from a FORUM-y flame war on the whole LLM thing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per RadioactiveBoulevardier. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Abel Prize
The article needs work before its ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be better to make Abel Prize the bold link? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNAWARDS says Unless otherwise noted, the target article is normally the winner of the award. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the article is nowhere near a postable state. There's only one paragraph of prose, which is unreferenced, plus a quote from his own book. The rest is just lists of awards and (too many) of his own works. Needs major expansion and third-party sourcing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk
 * Oppose article is too short and reads like a CV. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is practically a résumé. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Vietnamese president Võ Văn Thưởng resigns

 * Comment isn't this ITN/R? Change in executive, I assume interim president will be now appointed? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, interim presidents serve while a new election can be set up. Vice-presidents are the ones who get appointed as replacement presidents, but Vietnam doesn't seem to use this system. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Resignations are not ITNR. In fact, neither is the appointment of the President of Vietnam, since the person who assumes the functions of the country’s executive power, in accordance with the Vietnamese political system, is the General Secretary of the Communist Party. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the General Secretary holds the power, not the President. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The president in Vietnam does not hold executive power. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar resigns

 * Oppose resignations are not INTR, no matter how much someone with so many “pretty characteristics” resigns, as the nominator explains. Let’s wait for the election of the new Sinn Fein’s leader and, consequently, the next Taoiseach. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the point I was trying to make was that he was well-known internationally and had a big impact domestically; I wasn't commenting on whether it was commendable or not. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the election of the new Taoiseach will be ITN/R. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More typical to feature when the actual switchover happens. This will also give us more time to get a fuller picture of the story. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose when someone else gets elected, then that can be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Like the Vietnamese resignation, this is not ITN/R so this is definitely an oppose for me. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This will be ITNR when someone replaces Varadkar, but until then, it is not. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for the new PM to be chosen. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait - Until Varadkar is finally gone PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above, but I’d like to note an apparent consensus here that leadership elections leading to appointment of a new head of government are ITN-worthy. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait until a new PM is chosen. The   Kip  16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Indonesian general election

 * Support – This article looks extremely impressive to me, good work! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good, quite notable event eventhough most of the local Indonesians have already predicted the results from the quick count weeks ago SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Exceptional article, looks good to go. General election in the world's 4th most populous country should be posted as soon as possible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is impressive and has prose updates on the results and reactions. However it has a few quality issues: there are multiple unreferenced paragraphs in the 'electoral system' section, which also refers to the election in future tense; the 'endorsements' section is empty, so should either be expanded or that link integrated into the text; the 'house of representatives' table is incomplete, as is the adjacent figure; so is the 'by province' table. Once those are addressed, I will support posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added sources where required in the Electoral System section (and fixed tense). Aydoh8 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's still an empty section, a blank table, and a blank results image. I'm going to comment them out so this can be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made that fix, but there's still no reference for the presidential results table(!) which I think is the last thing holding up posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, someone added a source there - PDF from the electoral agency. Juxlos (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The results image still hasn't been updated, (turns out it has and I just had to clear my browser cache) and the 'by province' and 'demographics' tables still don't have references. Those problems should have been fixed five days ago, but they're not fatal so I won't hold this up any longer. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues also seem to have been fixed now. I agree this is ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait -I know the margin is very wide, but still according to law, the election commission must wait for Constitutional Court decision before determine if Prabowo become President-elect. Tensa Februari (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is like if we waited until the electoral college convened to post the U.S. Presidential Election, as in we're waiting for something that has no chance of actually affecting the outcome. If the Constitutional Court decides to invalidate the election, that is its own news story. Like, if the electors in the Electoral College decided to band together to choose a different candidate than they were pledged to do so, that would be a completely separate and significant event than the actual presidential election itself, since it's never actually happened before and the whole process post voting day is basically just a formality at this point. DNVIC (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Putin was only declared winner officially yesterday, still he has been ruling the front page since days. Why do the rules change so suddenly? 51.154.145.205 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficiently good quality to post --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I actually believe we should post these after the exit poll unless there is reasonable grounds that an exit poll will be inaccurate or it is too close to call. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support All the major tables for the results have been sourced. While the provincial results table does have a few cn's, it shouldn't hold up the nom. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Oppose on quality The tables for the results of the president and the house of representatives are currently unsourced (as well as the presidential results by province). Considering their importance, I think we should source those before posting. There also seems to be an under construction table for the house of representatives results by province. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment is there any remaining holdups? The local legislatures simply have no available data in some cases, and the rest of the results are pretty much done. Juxlos (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm here after reading the more recent Senegal election on the front page, why this one not posted yet? is it because the page are too ambitious by including provincial and municipal results which normally don't exist in most other election article? if so, then we should remove those part. OGNelson9 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Neeli Cherkovski
American poet. 240F:7A:6253:1:6C18:36A3:290E:56E2 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bibliography is uncited.  Spencer T• C 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. Emmet Walsh
American actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:CDAC:81A0:6D5:ED0F (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are several paragraphs uncited. Aydoh8 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Support issues have been rectified (thanks @Tails Wx!) Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support SUPPORT Clearly notable actor. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a note, that notability is not a criterion for posting an RD: An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is: 1) Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion. 2) Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death. 3) Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters. We are looking at quality instead of notability. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is clean fully sourced (30 sources) and ready to go. I made major additions and revisions.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now – several statements in the article's "Career" section and nearly the entire "Filmography" section are unsourced. Once I'm done with fixing referencing issues on another ITN-nominated article, I'll work to resolve the unsourced issues on this article if no one hasn't yet by then. Thanks! :) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support! By far, this is likely the most work I've done on an ITN-nominated article. I've added numerous sources to the article's filmography section, and cleaned up any unsourced information and the promotion of the subject via unnotworthy facts. 63 edits and 27,066 bytes of added text – I'm just tired and worn out after this now! Courtesy ping to for the update! :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are now lots of sources in the article, and they need to be mined to add to the fillmography and any errant sentences that don't have citations. I don't disagree with Natg 19 although in my opinion the WP:ITN process is persistently perverse.  When a person has over 250 documented appearances in films demanding a citation for every one is putting a premium on form over substance.  But that's the way you want it ... <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The readers had a different take on this. 335,887 pageviews as of 3/25/2024 <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Page views have no bearing on whether something is suitable for ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC
 * User:GenevieveDEon You are right. The 343,569 page views only indicate reader interest.  They don't need your approval.  The readers got the benefit of the improved article.
 * The article's content and referencing has been improved substantial. I did a lot of that.
 * And having been at WP:ITN over the years, I know just how much that means.
 * Whether it makes a difference is another question. Wait long enough and it all becomes moot.  The whole exercise at WP:ITN was wasted effort. I'm done here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Quite an important and memorable actor in films like Bladder Runner and the Coen Brother's Blood Simple. Countless other roles as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references now. Good job Tails Wx! Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 22:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: BrolyLegs
Professional video game player notable for being unable to use his hands. Article needs to be updated. Mlb96 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we can use Twitter/X as a verifiable source for his death. Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only outlet that's covered it so far is Eventhubs, which is considered an unreliable source per WP:GAMESOURCES. Hopefully some of the better sources will put out articles on it in the next few hours. Mlb96 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now there's spam websites paying respects to him (I found one which advertises an Amazon dropshipping scam as a "related topic"). No RS has yet reported on his death. We just wait until either his death is debunked, or an RS reports it. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until an actual RS confirms his death. For all I know this could be another Lil Tay situation.<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Support NME has just covered his death, article's sourcing seems fine. Source has been added. pinging to change your response. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait until if a WP:RS confirms his death. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks good. I just changed over the citation. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is probably the most solid for a fighting game player that I've seen so far. All it needs really is a photo of him. Jotamide (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Baynham

 * With 400+ words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. Formatting looks alright. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough to post Abcmaxx (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(Reviewers needed) RD: Pearse McAuley
Provisional IRA member, who escaped from Brixton Prison in 1991. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Chris Simon
Canadian former hockey player who won the Stanley Cup with the Colorado Avalanche in 1996. While The Guardian reported that he died on Tuesday, but TSN and ESPN both say that his death occurred on Monday. There is an orange-tagged section that needs to be addressed but the rest of the article already looks good. Vida0007 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from the orange tag for expansion, the article is lacking citations, many paragraphs without a source. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: James M. Ward
Game designer and author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose One cn tag, lead could be expanded further to reflect why he's notable/list some notable works and the selected works section needs more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Selected works section is largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Konstantin Koltsov
A former Belarusian pro ice hockey player.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. An entire section about his playing career is unsourced. So are his career statistics and awards. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Several paragraphs are unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – took care of the unsourced issues; the article should be fully referenced and well-sourced! Also expanded his playing career a bit and added an "Early life" section as well. Pings to and  for the updated article. Thanks! :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article is good enough now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rose Dugdale

 * Support Article seems well-sourced and of generally good quality --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, everything looks sourced and the article is a good length. Suonii180 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with the supports above, ready indeed. Jusdafax (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Nandipha Magudumana
 dxneo  (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The notable event would be the actual event being investigated, not the fact that she is being imprisoned. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, both because the alleged crime, not the investigation, is the real story, and also because this appears to be a local crime story without wider ramifications. In terms of headline writing: why does it matter what university the suspect went to? GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , because that is what she was known for before all the saga, it is one of the most prestigious universities in SA. If you visit the page you'd actually get my point but, still new at this. I'll do better next time.  dxneo  (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The arrest mentioned in the blurb took place in April 2023, and I am not seeing any new updates. I'm assuming the OP is trying to nominate the alleged assault of Magudumana? If so, I don't think that would be notable enough for ITN. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provincial and stale. Suggest SNOW. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Kolkata building collapse
Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now, undecided on notability at this time. Key figures like the number dead, injured, and arrested still need sourcing. Article is currently a bit stubby but probably could pass as at least start class, though it would benefit from expansion if/when more details are reported. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Article needs significant cleanup and more sources. Aydoh8 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The event seems to be of relatively low impact, with no lasting effects being described in the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Building collapses are not uncommon in India and with 10 dead it doesn't really rise to the level of ITN. There's also only limited coverage. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inconsequential. Setarip (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not a minor disaster ticker. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johndavies. The   Kip  18:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) Blurb/RD: Thomas P. Stafford
(blurb worthy), Thomas P. Stafford, who orbited the Moon on Apollo 10 and was the first, along with Gene Cernan, to fly the Apollo Lunar Module in lunar orbit, died today. Now only seven Moon travelers left, each of whom should be blurbed in this section after their deaths as pioneers of exploration and spaceflight. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Though no blurb has been proposed. The article is long and well sourced. However, it's a perfect case for RD rather than a blurb. He's not "in the news" for his death besides the obituary, and his feat of space flight was over 50 years ago. Blurbs are not for memorialization, but for deaths that themselves cause significant news. Or at least that's what I think they should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a short blurb (could be expanded but this is as concise as possible without mentioning the Apollo-Soyuz mission). Stafford's death will likely have much news coverage. He and the seven remaining Moon travelers should all have blurbs, and all will be well-covered by the media (especially the last to die and Buzz Aldrin, although he may be both!) Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unlike others here, I do not believe that "transformational in the field" is what makes a blurb candidate, as you can argue that anyone with a wiki article was "transformational" to their field, or else they wouldn't be notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OWERVELMINGLY SUPPORT  yes it ought to be there by morning ... Maybe we can also add to the blrb the Apollo Soyuz test project ? I feel that it was also important As he was the commander of it ....
 * sorry for spelling but I grieve...😭😭😭
 * Long LIVE Stafford! Ad astra aspera RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb The general benchmark for blurb vs. ticker is that the individual was transformative in their field, regardless of when their achievements were. And in this case, having traveled to the Moon is a very, very substantial & transformative thing on history. As mentioned, the number of living Moon travelers has dwindling as well. Each merits a blurb. Fortunately, the article still seems to be in full GA quality, (I saw zero issues there) so that part's an easy support: nice to see more GAs linked on the front page. Nottheking (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb per Nottheking  Abo Yemen ✉  18:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD due to two unsourced paragraphs in the Post-NASA career section, Oppose blurb due to there being only a one sentence update about his death, meaning the death itself is not notable enough. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the actual nomination, but I really don't think that 'the death itself must be a notable event in its own right' is a viable standard. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't want to start a long drawn out discussion, but just to clarify: I mean notable in the amount of Wikipedia coverage and media coverage, not just the manner of death (though this is not a widely shared opinion). Gödel2200 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have a stance one way or another on a blurb on this one, but if it's not too much to ask, I hope we can go one RD-as-a-blurb nomination without derailing it into a bunch of splintering meta-discussions about what we all individually feel should be the criteria. Everyone's perspective is equally valid on this and there is no need for those who feel differently to create reply chains on each other's messages. Whether you're more in the "at the top of one's respective field" camp, or the broader "having made significant transformative contributions to one's respective field" camp, or the narrower "thatcher/mandela standard" camp, or the even narrower "only when the death itself is the story, e.g. an assassination" camp, there is no one universally agreed upon bar for when to post an RD as a blurb, nor does there need to be one. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this disagreement will be settled once and for all in any particular individual blurb nomination, so I want to remind everyone that trying would be disruptive. Thanks. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Death isn't impactful/top-of-the-news/state funeral level, so not worthy of a death blurb. Yeah, that's a bit of a high criterion I use, but I don't believe we should run too many death blurbs given that we already have RD. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies No offense, Randy, I know how much space means to you. But if I, a non-fan, can name three bigger names from the moon, that's saying something. If (probably when) Buzz is blurbed, it should mean something, and that certain something becomes unattainable if every old moon man gets the hero's sendoff. Anyway, sorry for your loss. RD soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes,, just another old guy riding into the sunset. But before he rode there he and Cernan were the first humans to actually pilot and fly a spaceship around the Moon (or anywhere in deep space): the Apollo Lunar Module is the first actual spaceship. Blurb worthy, nah, something like that happens all the time (or just once, but who's counting). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't alive when the first two humans actually piloted and flew a spaceship around the moon. I never will be, but I'll be damned if I'm misunderstood to suggest it wasn't a very major milestone! I've seen the souvenirs, they're as numerous as they are serious. Various federal agencies won't commemorate this day in nearly the same way, because all that happened is the guy who already changed the game so thusly died, changing nothing further. Gamewise, I mean. His friends, fans and family should certainly feel a void. But the event from fiftyish years ago doesn't actually replay, it's just in our heads (with me, it's dead wrestlers, but I get the feeling). Kudos to you for paying your respects like this. My opposition doesn't erase that! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Seeing how there's a few people on this plant who could say they flew to the moon, I'd support the blurb on significance, however I know Frank Borman's failed blurb nom shows there might not be a chance this will pass besides as an RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on current quality issues. oppose blurb as unlike key astronauts like Glenn or Armstrong who went on to have influential careers and lives after their accomplishment, the same can't be said of Stafford here, or at least the articles gives little indication of such influence. M asem (t) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is pretty bad a contrast: Neil Armstrong has been particularly noteworthy for not having an "influential career" post-Apollo, (and instead maintaining largely a low profile) meanwhile Stafford would later command an arguably more significant spaceflight; you were remiss to make any mention of that. And that's before noting his big influence in the development of stealth aircraft in the 70s through 90s. And even then... There's nowhere that specifies that they have to remain fully active up to their death; otherwise folk like Margaret Thatcher (who was largely relegated to just "making appearances" not long after she ceased to be PM) should never have been blurbed... Or, for that matter, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov. Nottheking (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there were more significant factors to how Stafford influenced spaceflight or other areas following these missions, its not in the article. I'm looking for content that would fall into an impact or legacy section, which is why Thatcher remains a prime example of the type of people we should blurb on their death (in addition to the fact she got a full on week-long period of mourning recongized by the state).<span id="Masem:1710820387519:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 03:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don’t get why every single person who travelled to the Moon should get a blurb. Despite the fact it sounds spectacular as an achievement, it proved to be a superexpensive project that contributed relatively little to the understanding of complex spaceflight, especially since the last crewed flight to the Moon happened more than fifty years ago. I think Valeri Polyakov’s record for the longest continuous stay in space is of much greater importance with regards to the human presence in space. There are also other notable space record-holders that deserve a blurb more than him.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an initial accomplishment & an incremental record-holder. (after all, there's not so much to draw a line of where Polyakov's stay was distinctly unique compared to prior record-holders; you'll need to justify your claim of "much greater importance," especially compared to, say, Skylab) And to outright claim that it contributed little to the understanding of spaceflight? That almost comes off as just a bad-faith claim. You're also ignoring that Stafford was the Commander of Apollo 10, and thus also the first to command a spacecraft away from Earth orbit that they had not launched in... Also that he was the American commander of the Apollo-Soyuz mission. Nottheking (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The last crewed mission to the Moon was in 1972, so it had certainly contributed relatively little to the understanding of spaceflight as the future manned missions focused more on the human stay in space through the space stations. I think it's a fair belief from the 1970s that the landing of people on the Moon would largely shape the future of spaceflight, but it proved to be factually incorrect as the history of spaceflight took a different turn. In my opinion, as of 19 March 2024, we should reserve blurbs only for Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space), Svetlana Savitskaya (first woman to conduct a spacewalk) and Buzz Aldrin (member of the first crew that landed on the Moon) and close the circle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. No disrespect to Stafford, but even if the number of people to go to the moon is small, it really is just several of the same accomplishment. Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were worthy of blurbs for being the first trio to go, they deserved blurbs. Don't need everyone having gone to get one, especially given it's inevitable the number of people going to the moon will increase in the future. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, Buzz Aldrin is alive. So currently unworthy and undeserving of a blurb, no matter how big a deal he remains for all the things he did. We don't remember anniversaries here, that's OTD's job. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael Collins never landed on the Moon, by the way: the Command Module Pilot remained in orbit during all landings of the Apollo program. Though yes, we did blurb his death. Also to base one's argument on an accomplishment being "inevitable" to be repeated leans into WP:CRYSTAL. Nottheking (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Man, how about that. I had sworn he died a few years ago. My bad there. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD because unsourced passages in article. Oppose blurb on principle. His death isn't a major news story. TarkusAB talk / contrib 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality and Oppose Blurb on notability per Masem and Kiril. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, this is a message to everyone who opposes the mention. Stafford was Chief of the Astronuat office, moon man, piloted the famous Gemini 6A flight ( first time two spacecraft were close to each other ) and commanded ASTP marked peace in space as now the USSR and USA stopped racing each other to several I did this I did that and marked ☮️ in outer space . Also NO MOON CMP -> NO MOON LANDING AS WITHOUT APOLLO 10 testing everything -> NO APOLLO 11 NO NIEL BUZZ AND COLLINS BECOME A HERO and stuff like that RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏  (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Added altblurb II. I've seen a lot of the emphasis on all opposition centered around downplaying the significance of Apollo 10 (or even the Apollo program in general) but a lot reflects some ignorance of the man's accomplishments. I've added a blurb that focuses on a separate accomplishment that I feel many might consider even more significant. It's worth noting that we bolded the other commander of that mission when he passed away, too. Nottheking (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a space person, so I would be against blurbing, but I think alt blurb 2 is less noteworthy or well known than the first two blurbs. Most people know of the Apollo missions to the moon, but I have never heard of the Apollo-Soyuz mission. Natg 19 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Blurb since the manner of his death is not notable and he is not an incumbent head of state/government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of those is a specific criterion for this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb on notability per Masem.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like Anders and Lovell will probably be more appropriate blurb targets, as Apollo 8 was the first crewed moonflight (did we miss Borman btw, or did we blurb him?). That being said, at this point, I would be alright with limiting blurbs to the old moonwalkers and perhaps the very final individual to reach the Moon. Either way, I'll probably support any article with three or more sentences added regarding their death, as I sure do love the Apollo program. I'll also note that there's currently an orange-tag. Can go either way. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Borman was a RD, not a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good article notice: The article has a "Good" rating, so concerns mentioned above about the quality of the page should not factor into if Stafford is listed in RD or a blurb. At a minimum he should be in RD with the option of a blurb as this discussion evolves (or ends). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quality issue can rise up after the GA badge is added. When I first looked, there was a cleanup tag on a section, which had to have been added after the GA badge. We look at the present state of the article.<span id="Masem:1710874275174:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD Stafford led a significant life, not just going to the moon, but also flying Gemini twice and more importantly being commander on the Apollo-Soyuz test project, which was said to mark the true culmination of the space race. Even if his death itself isn't noteworthy, the death of someone noteworthy, who led a noteworthy life, is worthy of mention, particularly when many others who are given recent death mentions lived noteworthy lives with a seemingly inconspicuous death (i.e. died in their sleep). Oppose Blurb as his death isn't a noteworthy event in it's own right. 185.218.220.63 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to justify his significance for RD. If he's in Wikipedia, and his article is free of significant defects, he should be posted. And I still don't think someone's death has to be noteworthy in its own right for someone to be given a blurb.GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 - Nottheking has convinced me - the Apollo/Soyuz mission was a truly remarkable achievement in its own right, and is probably Stafford's single greatest personal accomplishment in a very accomplished career. I tend to moderate caution with death-blurbs, but this one has me persuaded. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I lament that we don't have institutionalized rules on RD Blurbs to restrict them. For me I think the manner of the death itself or its direct impact beyond the person being dead has to be significant (e.g. a serving head of state/government, religious leader, etc.). "Old man dies" is not a news story. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I don't think Apollo astronauts should automatically get a blurb, and Stafford was frankly one of the least famous of them. When Buzz Aldrin dies he will certainly merit a blurb, but I don't think any of the other survivors were influential enough (maybe Lovell?). There's an orange-tagged section that will need to be addressed before posting in RD. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe I've fixed the two paragraphs without a source, so the article should be ready for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A comment on sourcing Much of the article is sourced to Stafford's own autobiography, which of course means that much of it may be unverifiable. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would assume a published autobiography through a reputable publisher, in addition to having a co-writer, means that we should assume personal details and aspects he was personally involved with are verified, but things that are given as hersay in his voice which he'd have no privvy to knowing should be used carefully.<span id="Masem:1710935866163:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 11:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article seems to be relatively well cited, however Oppose Blurb just because someone went to the moon doesn't automatically guarantee them a blurb, as stated above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment People really know nothing about the Apollo program if they think that Tom Stafford was "less important" to it than Neil Armstrong. I'd urge people to actually read the articles on Wikipedia, if nothing else. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, doesn't seem to be big in international news, support RD, I couldn't see anything obvious that was unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support Blurb and RD - Every Apollo astronaut deserves a blurb, both due to the amount of media coverage, and how significant of an event the Apollo program was. The article is of great quality, and as others have pointed out, even if you set aside the fact that he never landed, Apollo-Soyuz alone makes this worthy enough. He was instrumental to one of the greatest diplomatic feats in modern history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted as RD Stephen 21:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Tensi
1960s AFL quarterback. Looks decent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The first paragraph in the professional career section doesn't have a source for the last 3 sentences. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a reference for two of those sentences. There's just one cn now. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's good enough for RD now. Support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved to March 17 as it appears his death was first announced on that date; otherwise would have rolled off. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cola Boyy
American singer and disabled activist. 240F:7A:6253:1:CDAC:81A0:6D5:ED0F (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks sufficient but it would be optimal to fix the one cn tag that is present. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Hennadiy Moskal
Former govenor of Zakarpattia Oblast and Luhansk Oblast. Jmanlucas (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality for now. I'm working on bringing it up to scratch. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The education, career and awards sections are mostly bullet-points where prose is expected. The short prose on his being governor of two different oblasts has no info on what he did as governor, but start and end dates. Please expand and add prose. There are also a couple of {cn} tags in the existing prose. Please add more REFs. Time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Russian presidential election
Let's prepare to post this as soon as the election results are announced, as it's widely expected that no one other than Putin will emerge as the winner. --Saqib (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced and an election that happens in a country as large as Russia should always be in ITN Lukt64 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose dictator wins election again after imprisoning opposition. not notewortht Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, folks! Pakistan's very own Sikandar Sultan Raja is now in Russia as a foreign observer. Because, you know, who better to bring democracy back to Russia than someone from a country renowned for its flawless electoral processes? --Saqib (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like only hand-picked "observers" were invited who will confirm that black is white. Brandmeistertalk  20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support once the Kremlin announces the official margin of victory. "Who votes decides nothing. Who counts the votes decides everything." -Joseph Stalin -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Dog bites man and sky is blue again, but added altblurb as it wasn't without electoral frauds yet again. Brandmeistertalk  19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, but would've been funnier to post it before the results were announced. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability There are four cn's and the results section is not complete, but I think this is notable enough (even though it was clearly not a fair election). Gödel2200 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blubs, but I might consider one that acknowledges that those were not free and fair elections. Cambalachero (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NOTPROPAGANDA. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s propaganda to state that Putin won the election. Fairly? Definitely not, but if we include that in the blurb then I don’t see how that’s propaganda 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:84F2:E48D:4482:3D17 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The so-called election appears to be a ritual ceremony conducted entirely for propaganda purposes. It's amusing to read about the devices used to encourage the population to play along with it and toe the line.  But presenting this as much the same as the Portuguese election is a false equivalence. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The election itself isn't propaganda, though no doubt some of the things that Putin and the Russian government as a whole have said certainly are. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aydoh8 summed it up. If we make it clear that the election wasn't free and fair then I don't think there's a problem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is propaganda to say he won the election, because that implies some degree of competition and chance of him losing. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's propaganda to describe it as an election. Coverage and commentators are describing it as a "pseudo-election".  This seems a useful term in the same way that pseudoscience pretends to be true science but just fakes it.  As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, we should try to present this in a scholarly way using accurate language. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As per WP:COMMONNAME, it shoud be described as an elecion. The article refers to it as such, and the vast majority of media sources do as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for multiple reasons. Firstly, it’s a presidential election in the largest country in the world. Secondly, a re-election of a person who began invading another country is certainly notable. Thirdly, despite the fact the result was expected, this is widely covered in the news. I don’t mind if the blurb mentions that the election was neither free nor fair, but we should get it up on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but change blurb The election, whether it was fair or not, keeps the president in power until 2030 and that alone should be significant enough for a blurb. However, we should include something to acknowledge the nature of this election and that other candidates (most notably Boris Nadezhdin) were excluded and other opposition figures are in exile, jail or dead (most notably Alexei Navalny, who was excluded from the previous election). Johndavies837 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't this ITN/R? Have I missed something? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This is not a change in the executive, and I don't think this is the general election (that would probably be the legislative elections). Gödel2200 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely Putin is the executive given that de facto he has absolute power? Legislative election have little significance given he is a dictator. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Putin is the executive, and you're right about the significance of the legislative elections. But the only elections WP:ITNELECTIONS would include for Russia are "The results of general elections" and "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive." As I said, even though the legislative elections may not be as significant as the presidential one, I think they are considered the general election; see the General election article, which states: "A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature." Gödel2200 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:ITNPURPOSE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Just because the elections weren't free doesn't mean that they are not in the news and of great international significance. DecafPotato (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: alt-blurb -- Ruler-of-world Putin sparks voters in 29 regions into electronic suffrage. ⚡ -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt2 is wholly unappropriate for the ITN box - we're not here to make political points. However, Alt1 is fine in that it is true but doesn't try to call them "elections" as the rest of the democratic world would consider them. --M asem (t) 23:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the election has been described as non-free and non-fair and it is a major part of the news reporting, it is absolutely valid to describe it as such, and not a "political point". It would be much more political to label it as an election with the same standing as the Portuguese one. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This has happened every time the Russian election happens, as well as "elections" that are far from free and open in other countries, and we have generally rejected that call. There is not enough space to give context to that explanation in the blurb in the infobox, that's the job the article should serve. M asem (t) 00:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're basically right that a simple blurb serves the purpose better (e.g. "X is (re-)elected president of Y.), but the majority doesn't agree with that view as usual and we're back into the discussion cycle. However, it's irrelevant at this point when some editors oppose this outright, and omitting this would be a bigger shame than posting an indicative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3; supported by sources, and reflects that this isn't a free or fair election. BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the original blurb and alt1; WP:NPOV applies to ITN, and failing to make clear - like all reliable sources do - that this wasn’t a free and fair election - would violate NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an NPOV violation to not include information. The statement that the elections were far from free or fair is something that should be addressed on the article but where there is more context to explain why they were not considered free or fair. The ITN blurb line is not something to try to force a statement without further context into. M asem (t) 01:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be, per WP:BALASP. The most significant point, based on its weight in reliable sources, is that these elections weren’t free or fair. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The most significant point is that Putin was the person that got the most votes from this election process, regardless of how it was run. That the elections were a sham is a major point, but it is a point that has a POV attached to it (one that prescripts to a pro-democracy aspect) that needs context that is inappropriate to try to force into an ITN blurb, it needs the space that an article can give to explain why that's the case and where it can be given due weight. We're talking what can be covered in a dozen some words compared to the unlimited space of article text, and that's where we have to stay to the most objective fact.<span id="Masem:1710763316971:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 12:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. This is the most neutral way to say that Putin has another term in office. It is not our job to comment on the freeness or not of Russia's elections. Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Only the initial blurb is acceptable. There are plenty of countries with equal or worse systems of government compared to Russia which we have posted without commentary. For neutrality’s sake, let’s not have a silly debate over what to call these results. Thriley (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 saying the vote was "predetermined" as in altblurb3 might be interpreted as SPECULATION since we don't know if the exact results were predetermined, we only know that the overall outcome was suspicious enough for us to guess the outcome of "Putin winning by roughly 80-90%" was probably predetermined. On the other hand, the election is being covered especially for the allegations of electoral misconduct so that should be mentioned. Tube·of·Light 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously, and I plan to point how undemocratic US elections are when they next happen. All that electoral college crap, etc. Yeah, I know. I know. My point is that it's not our job here to describe how democratic or otherwise each country's elections are. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 IMO, ALT1 veers away from unintentionally framing it as a truly democratic election ("is announced as the winner" instead of "is elected"), without crossing too far into RGW/violating NPOV. The   Kip  06:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support initial blurb per WP:ITNELECTIONS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DecafPotato sums it up nicely.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  06:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 this best describe the event.
 * <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">LiamKorda 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support ALT2 -- oppose all other blurbs. It was not a real election and Wikipedia should not pretend that it was. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor should Wikipedia declare in its own voice that it wasn't. That's NOT our job!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But.... it simply wasn't? There's not a values judgment here. The objective reality is the election was neither free nor fair. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling the Russian elections not free or fair is not an objective reality. It's is a subjective view that does have wide support of most leaders of democratic nations and of most of the western media, and as such must be given high prevalence in the article per NPOV, but it is not an objective statement. M asem (t) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm concerned about a possible precedent, that each and every election needs to be analysed at ITN to decide how free or fair it is. The wording of Alt II seems clunky "non-free and non-fair" - is non-fair a word? Would it be better to say something like "Vladimir Putin claims victory in the Russian presidential election"?AusLondonder (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 this is how the news sources are reporting it. This is not about making a political point, it is about accurately reflecting the news that this was a predetermined result. Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 or ALT3 all sources are calling it a sham election, and so we should not be portraying it the same way as a fair election, this would violate WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows reliable sources, and all of them are calling it a sham election. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. I agree that the initial blurb is lacking adequate context. I could go for ALT3, but I think ALT2 is the most neutral. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt0 or alt1. The article has a few cn tags but nothing that should hold up posting. This was certainly not a fair election, but I don't think we should be putting uncited wording about that into our blurb. The article discusses the accusations - with references. Alt2 would be particularly misleading, because international observers were not allowed to monitor the election! Stick to neutral wording. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support ALT3 this blurb is most in line with what actually happened in Russia. Newklear007 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support ALT3 as it most closely represents the lede in most secondary sources. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 12:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support initial as per DecafPotato. Alts II and III clearly have POV that must be kept off the main page. --LukeSurlt c 13:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support initial || alt based on the lead of the linked article, said prose doesn't support the strong POVs pushed in a2/a3. Also, this is very much ITN now, and should be posted without further delay. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted with alt1. There is consensus to post, but no consensus about which blurb to use, with people disagreeing about whether the blurb should reflect that the election was a sham. Taking this into account, I've chosen alt blurb 1, which tries to strike a balance in this respect.  Sandstein   14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - good blurb, thanks.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also thanks to . No response needed.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That blurb didn't last long and what's on the main page now reads "Vladimir Putin (pictured) is proclaimed the winner of the Russian presidential election, securing a fifth term." This sounds quite triumphalist and doesn't give the slightest hint that there was any issue with the election.  As this reads like it might have been written by the Kremlin, I'm not seeing the balance. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please could you revert to the original version of the blurb? announced as or announced to be are better than this weird proclaimed version that is there now, and the posting admin's choice of blurb here was a good one IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also pinging . Please could we revert to the blurb that was chosen here, rather than fiddling around based on comments made elsewhere? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. How about you, ?  Schwede 66  15:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply responded to a post at WP:ERRORS by ; if the editors here want it changed back, do not consider me to be in the way, but I think it is less wordy now. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also support "announced" instead of "proclaimed", which has pretty triumphal connotations. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back per the discussion here. Stephen 20:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question - Is having his face on the main page necessary? It's newsworthy, but slowly my monitor gets a burn-in of his face, it's on all websites since a while... 51.154.145.205 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Whatever you might think of him, the convention is that we attach a photo to the top story if there's a suitable free one available, and to not do so in this particular case would arguably be a breach of NPOV as well as starting a slippery slope in the form of a fresh area of needless debate and acrimony over which topics qualify for the "distasteful" picture exemption and which don't. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question Isn't this ITNR per WP:ITNELECTIONS? IntoThinAir (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that this wasn't free and fair makes notability dubious, but considering how important Russia is on the global stage atm I think it's enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any stipulation that the elections be "free and fair" to qualify for WP:ITN/R. We routinely do post such stories, even for smaller countries than Russia, and the precise details are usually best left for the article itself rather than trying to make editorial decisions over here at ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it gets a little ridiculous. Would we blurb the 2019 Democratic Republic of Korea election? 86.188.241.228 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. This is neither a change in the executive, nor a general election (one of these needs to occur for it to be ITNR), meaning it is not ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's Russia, and it doesn't make sense that we wouldn't post the "election" of the leader of a global power and wanted fugitive who is leading a war. The idea that just because Putin was not voted out in his rigged election, that it shouldn't be posted is a poor one. Just as it wouldn't make sense to not post Joe Biden being reelected(if he is). There is not(and should not be) a requirement that an election be free and fair. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we should post this, regardless of whether this was an unfair election. But the question wasn't whether we should post it, but rather if this is ITNR, which only deals with general elections and changes in the head of state. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This was a general election. Perhaps not a free and fair one, but it was one nonetheless. ITN/R does not currently have any carve-outs for whether something's free and fair, and I don't think it should. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a pedantic point, but this was NOT a 'general election'. Those are, by definition, elections in which every member of an assembly/parliament/council/whatever is being decided, as opposed to a single member or some fraction of them. This was a presidential election, for a single person. We posted it because that person is both head of state and head of government, not because the election was general. I notice that the wording on ITNR was changed since I last saw it, so it now refers to 'changes' in head of state/government; I think that's a mistake and should also include re-elections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull current blurb. The election lacks legitimacy, it should not have any air of legitimacy and should reflect the reality that it was neither free nor fair. This is not a POV issue. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * New Rule! For all future elections anywhere we will do a full analysis of the fairness of the elections in that country before posting. This will rule out the USA, because the Electoral College is totally undemocratic, and there are many gerrymanders. Note - the foregoing is satire. It is designed to mock those of you who who want to single out one undemocratic country for special treatment. Faults can be found everywhere. Debating them here is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop defending Russia. American elections are considered free and fair by observers, Russian elections are not, you know this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not defend Russia. And you completely missed my point. Attacking Russia, or anybody else, is NOT the job of ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ITN is not ignoring the concern of the election being fair, just that within the dozen some words for a blurb, it is impossible to go into that and stay with a neutral voice which NPOV also demands. M asem (t) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources make it clear that the election wasn’t free & fair, so the failure to mention it in the blurb seems like the NPOV violation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose this sort of blurb for any election that isn’t free & fair according to reliable sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the current blurb The current blurb doesn’t make it clear that the election wasn’t free & fair. Reliable sources make it clear that the election wasn’t free & fair, so the failure to include that seems like a POV violation. Btw, “announced as the winner” would be better wording than “announced winner”. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb since the sources stated this election wasn't free and fair. There's a difference between WP:RGW based on an editor's opinion and actually reflecting what the sources state.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 21:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment It's pretty clear there is going to be contention with any blurb. Perhaps all that needs to be said is that Putin was declared victorious in a controversial election. Going into any further detail is above and beyond ITN purpose, the article can speak to the controversy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did we say the last US presidential election was controversial? Many said far worse about it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment the blurb should be changed. Reliable sources are stating how this is a "rubber stamped" election, that there was no credible opponent, that this was a predetermined result. The blurb should reflect that, there is nothing POV or political about the truth (unless the intention is to twist it). Polyamorph (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is totally political to single out this particular undemocratic election for special mention. Which other elections did we do that for? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pull parroting Kremlin's line that this was an election is simply further propelling Russian propaganda. An election, even when not entirely free and fair, implies some level of genuine contest, which this event did not contain. At the barest minimum, we must add a qualifier such as 'Putin claims victory in an election widely characterised by independent observers to have been unfree.'  Mel ma nn   22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this the only election you want that done for? There are plenty of other less than perfect ones in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't pull, but add a mention of the criticism by international observers. It's not NPOV to report a contested claim unqualified, and I would much rather see more regular mention of this kind of thing when we post election results. (Yes, including when it applies to western nations that are more commonly regarded as democracies.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't Pull, But picture one of the previously unpictured Oscar winners instead. Or two, the Best Supporting Actor then Best Actor. The aforementioned burn-in threat is real. And no, this isn't Putinphobia. I suggested as much back when Luis Montenegro was seen winning, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this, but should we say whether the Oscar results were described as free and fair by international observers? Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 11:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Their overlords made a grave mistake by robbing Frank Langella in '88, but that doesn't make them graverobbers. It just makes them partial to Michael Douglas. Which is fine, if you're into that. I think people generally know how the KGB, WWE and MPAA roll, and no amount of wordiness will change where most sit. Anyway, however far this proposal gets, I hope ITN pictures a woman next, no matter who. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put my ruling down as something unconventional. I'm voting facepalm. What are we doing here gang? Firstly, the only reason this isn't ITN/R is because of some odd technicality that we started applying recently that elections of the head of state alone where the head of state remains the incumbent are apparently not ITN/R. That alone is tenuous as it is. But the real issue here is the fact that we're splitting hairs over posting the re-election (whether free and fair or not) of one of the most powerful people in the world is worthy of ITN? I mean, how on Earth is it not? Putin is still the president of Russia. This isn't propaganda, it's just a fact. None of us here actually believe it was free or fair, however this is everywhere in the article. Why then is it an issue that we don't have an effective formality in the blurb when any reader will know this fact pretty much as soon as they click on the target article. C'mon gang. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m fine w/posting a blurb. However, I think a blurb needs to mirror reliable sources & mention that the election wasn’t free & fair. A blurb that doesn’t mention that is misleading & I consider it a problem to have a blurb that makes Russia’s election sound similar to Portugal’s election. A lot of people who see the blurb won’t necessarily click on the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull and replace with Altblurb 3 The nature of the election should reflect how it is being discussed/referred to by major news sources. The lack of this caveat makes the election seem like any other ITNR election we've featured in the past few months, whereas in reality this one is different - I know some editors are engaging in whataboutism on that front, but the reality is that this election is highly distinguishable in terms of how it has been referred to by sources re: whether it was free and fair. The current blurb actively misleading by omission. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 00:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave as is. There have been disputed or dubious elections throughout Wikipedia's history, but it's never been our policy to attempt to editorialise blurbs or include nuance in a single sentence that's best found in the article. Bottom line is that the election is in the news, it's still being described as an election in sources despite the apparent lack of fairness, and we always use the same sort of boilerplate blurb for these regardless. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can obviously post nuanced blurbs because we have one right now — the Portuguese result is qualified to indicate that the nominal winner doesn’t have a majority. And the bit about the fifth term is a nuance too.  And when Sandstein posted this blurb, he clearly stated that he was choosing one with a nuance that provided some balance.  So, the idea that ITN has a rigid, inflexible format is quite mistaken.  Andrew🐉(talk) 05:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Use original blurb - what's the reason for the convoluted "announced as the winner" instead of just "wins" or "is elected"? Banedon (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 or alt3. Anything that suggests there was the possibility of some other outcome is dishonest. --Carnildo (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove "securing a fifth term" If the outcome was predetermined, then neither the announcement nor the election actually "secured" his presidency. And the 2018 blurb didn't even mention the number of terms.  I'd suggest just dropping this part altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you might be thinking of a different word, since we can only secure what we already have, but if it's that unusual, yeah, go without it. Or just say Putin wins his fifth Russian presidential election. The latter kind of makes it sound like we're calling him a winner, of course, but it's shorter. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My dictionary says "succeed in obtaining (something), especially with difficulty". A common theme above is that it had already been obtained.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mine says "put beyond hazard of losing". Among other things, too, including something like you're saying. Seems to more fit the verb I'd call "win", but whatever, words are weird. I stand corrected. Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with calling him a winner? He won the election. Even if something is rigged, there is a winner and loser(s). Natg 19 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, the word connotes what it does and (if I'm reading the room correctly) is a designation best announced by some unspecified other. It's not how I would write it. But it's the wording we got. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically he could only secure his position as president if he won the election, even if he has full control of the political system. I suppose it is just a formality. But I think the number of terms is important to mention to show that he is president-for-life at this point. Mellk (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen one source describing it as "cementing his fifth term", which could be an alternative phrasing for this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull. There wasn't a consensus for this blurb; while most editors wanted something posted, there was too much explicit opposition to Alt1 and Alt0 for consensus for them to emerge. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment You all are invited to discuss about Legitimacy of Elections and Amendment to ITNELECTIONS Harvici  ( talk ) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep it happened, it's in the news, your feelings about Putin are irrelevant. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't about our feelings, anon. It's about the opinions of recognised professionals in the field, whose opinions were sufficiently unanimous and strongly expressed that they formed part of the headlines themselves about this election in reliable sources around the world. It's not NPOV to ignore that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reword securing a fifth term. The current wording erroneously implies that the outcome of the election was not predetermined. Alternatives include gaining a fifth term (used in the article), cementing a fifth term (as suggested above) or something like His fifth term as president begins on 7 May 2024. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt II. Most of my news feed mentions the corruption in the headlines. FWIW it's a reasonably diversified feed in English, French, and Bokmal running the spectrum from Fox News and the like to various leftist sources. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 15:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Support an important election that is in the news, why wouldn't we keep it? Everybody knows that the election was rigged, not a huge shocker, but still a significant outcome. We should replace the current blurb with the alt3 blurb though. Hungry403 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose current blurb This wording implies a free and fair election; if included, it should be 100% clear that the election was not free and fair and is simply a corrupt election (as pretty much every major news organization has done). We should not be giving legitimacy to the dictator's little show. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a big show. With plenty of free tickets. Like the current Wikipedia front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we should make it clear that it was rigged bit of showboating. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is In The News. The news is that Putin is again/still President. That the election may well have been a sham election is not current news. That would be a WP:COATRACK issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt Blurb Shameful to imply this was a legitimate election. What about reliable sources? Every reliable source admits it was a sham. JDiala (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not implying anything. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) final

 * Comment Not one of the 5 INTR cricket items, so many not be one to feature, but regardless, far too little prose to qualify in quality. --M asem (t) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Changed the bold article to the finals article rather. Have added prose summary for the finals. Also, minor correction / context on the above message. There is only one women's cricket WP:ITNR item currently, not five. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a cricket fan, I've noticed the level of coverage in news source on this is nowhere near as high as the ones on ITNR e.g. the men's IPL. And the coverage is also lower than the 2023 inaugural edition of this event, which I don't think would have managed to reach the threshold either. Also, the final article is sparce, and the main event article is terrible, as it has no actual tournament prose. Therefore, I'm opposing both on importance and notability. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Final article is the bolded one. Ktin (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's not quite up to standard. And that doesn't swing me on notability either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Substantiate? The only thing missing in the finals article was the prose update, which was added. Ktin (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to say what is missing in the finals page. Ktin (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is never in question. If not notable, there would be no article. If you are implying that the women's event is not of the same category of importance of the men's event -- you should state it as such. I disagree with that, fwiw. Ktin (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2023 final was merged into the main article despite having more coverage than this article, but by notability in my previous comment I mean ITN notability/importance. This doesn't meet the high threshold that ITN has for these events. And the women's coverage does not get the same level of the coverage currently as the men's equivalent event that is ITNR- I have already stated this, and this is in spite of it being the biggest women's domestic level cricket competition. Posting this in spite of less coverage would seem like an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Inaugural editions benefit from two kinds of coverage -- coverage re: the inauguration of the edition, and coverage re: the event itself. Subsequent editions have the latter alone. Ktin (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and notability. The article for the final has an unreferenced scorecard section, and this seems to be a domestic tournament with relatively low notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Scorecard is sourced right above. But, added a separate source again. Ktin (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the sourcing quality of this article is also pretty poor in places. The whole background section has a general website link not to specific pages, and lots of the text for the match is sourced only to the scorecard - this should be updated to proper news articles about the match, of the standard of the BBC article that's the only other source used in the match summary section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance. Even most cricket fans weren't aware that this competition exists, let alone watched the final. If we're going to post a women's cricket event, it should be the Women's Cricket World Cup, which gets broader attention. This event is a domestic tournament in only its second season. If/when it achieves the prominence of any of the men's tournaments we already post, then we should add it to the ITNR list. Until then, this is laudable but not appropriate for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just going to say it is hard to demand that a women's competition already get high levels of attention before allowing us to give it attention. I've not looked at the article so will not add a view on the nom, but most of Wikipedia tries hard to counter bias and this comment argues for the opposite. Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but posting in ITN does not drive attention in the popular media, broadcasters etc. I'm not demanding that the WPL reach the same level as the men's IPL, but it does need to be among the most covered cricket tournaments (of any gender) to justify being in the small number that we post. There are sports where that near-parity has been achieved (tennis, athletics etc.); it is unfortunate that cricket isn't one of them but that's not ITN's fault. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not quite happy with the source usage in the article. Somehow, 80% of the prose of the article is cited to two tables of data (at BBC and ESPN). The writing is great, but to me it ends up feeling like a type of original research to write so much beautiful detail based purely on raw data. I would hope some professional commentators have written about the match after the fact and given their own interpretations of the flow of the competition. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Harley
English singer/songwriter. Article isn't bad at all but has some uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, comprehensive article, very well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, ready for RD. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 00:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Well cited and written.Jusdafax (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could this nomination please be reviewed? BangJan1999 15:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would love to help, but I nominated it! Anyone else? Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Seidler
240F:7A:6253:1:424:460D:B1EE:9F7C (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the four CN tags are resolved. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All CN tags have been resolved. Thank you Golan1911 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Writing credits and awards and nominations sections are unsourced. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Laxminarayan Ramdas
Former Admiral of Indian Navy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not bad, but there's a number of unsourced statements, including a large block of text. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've added references to the unsourced statements, only one citation needed tag remains, but that shouldn't stop the article from being posted. Ping to for the update. Thanks! :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 15:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good now. Just one cn isn't enough to holdup. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Joe Camp
Noted Film maker. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the orange tag is resolved. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No prose for a Career section? No sources in the Filmography and Awards sections? --PFHLai (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Kivu Conflict

 * Oppose Neither the Kivu conflict or M23 offensive (2022–present) articles have sufficient updates. The former does not mention any specific dates in 2024 (and hasn't even been edited since 6 March), while the latter article does not mention any dates since February 7 2024. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Gödel2200; the Ongoing section is for content that would consistently get posted to ITN and consistently appears with repeated updates in the news and on Wikipedia, which this doesn't have. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment while on Africa, possibly Sudan? that article gets relatively consistent updates. Lukt64 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The updates to the War in Sudan article are mostly fine, as it's been updated with info from the last few days. But in total, there's only three sentences about March 2024. Compared to the Red Sea Crisis page which has quite a lot of prose about events from this month, that's unfortunately not very impressive. There's already a lot of major news in ongoing and I'd guess that !voters at ITN might be a bit hesitant to add too many more entries unless the proposed pages receive updates comparable to the updates of the pages already listed. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sudan war was actually removed in January due to a lack of updates, and I don't think it'll be readded any time soon. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Regrettably. While the M23 offensive page is more up to date than the proposed Kivu conflict article, neither contain enough recent information to post them to Ongoing at this time. I do think it's a very notable topic, but posting to ongoing requires that the target page is regularly updated with fresh information. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of many ongoing armed conflicts. The latest developments don't seem especially unusual. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others have said. In addition, ongoing should really be for news events that have near-daily high profile news coverage, such as how both the Ukraine and the Gaza/Middle East stories have been, so that we aren't regularly posting ITN blurbs for it. I don't see this conflict having that type of coverage. --M asem (t) 17:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but oppose on quality. The conflict itself is notable and worthy of inclusion, especially as it's escalating but the article would need much more detail and more recent and regular updates. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. It's objectively ramping up in intensity, but the article just isn't in good-enough shape update-wise. The   Kip  06:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Agree with above, important issue but currently lacking in citations/quality. Hyder538 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Byron Janis
American classical pianist. 240F:7A:6253:1:424:460D:B1EE:9F7C (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Honors section currently is unsourced. There are a couple of {cn} tags in the main prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: David Breashears
Mount Everest filmmaker and mountaineer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article says he won 4 emmys but there's no source for that and IMDb is cited three times and it is considered generally unreliable. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve taken care of those problems. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice, article looks fine now. Support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve taken care of the problems & there are enough details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Frans de Waal
Professor of Primate Behavior at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. A major figure behind bonobos becoming popular. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Career section and awards sections need more citations. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Could you take another look? References have been added to both sections. gobonobo  + c 18:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is now well-referenced, including the career and awards sections. gobonobo  + c 18:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Walter Blum
American Hall of Fame jockey. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose multiple unsourced statements. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This article has enough details & references now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim McAndrew
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * • Support Fairly cited Harvici  ( talk ) 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - No tags and well sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Starship third flight test, first successful
To address concerns about this being as a "routine coverage" of rocket development, this launch is different from the first launch, in that it has achieved a successful launch without explosions. As of the time of nomination, the mission is in progress and the spacecraft would reenter in 20 minutes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominated early to encourage attention to the article and blurb posting once ready. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that starship has not reentered successfully. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This was not a 'successful' flight of an orbital rocket and the nomination was premature. According to your CNN link above, this got further than the previous two tests, but a) did not reach orbit, b) failed to reignite the engines as planned, and c) burned up when it fell back into the atmosphere. That's a less bad failure than before, which is certainly useful progress, but the rocket still hasn't done what it was designed to do - put a payload into orbit. Also, the nominated article is a mess: multiple orange-level tags, not updated etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The rocket failing a little later than the previous one is not ITN-worthy. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everything above. Yes, it made it to space this time, but both vehicles were still destroyed. We've already nominated Starship's first launch, which is all we should do until it's fully operational, and not just tests. Second test wasn't nominated posted either.  q w 3 r t y  14:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The second test was in fact nominated for ITN but it did not gain consensus. User3749 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant to say, having a brain is hard  q w 3 r t y  16:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and notability per above. Suggest SNOW close. Moncoposig (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I don't see a need to post this considering this is the third test. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - To write this off as a failure is misleading; vast majority of reliable sources do not classify this as such, including the ones listed. This is front page news on almost every major source, article needs a little work but is almost good to go, this entry is encyclopedic and notable as many milestones in spaceflight were reached. In any case, a SNOW Close on this after 1 hour is ridiculous. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue about failure shenanigans here, but I do think it deserves a spot on ITN because this thing is going to be on the media for many days. Also, it seems that people here do not have a clear criteria on "what would cut it for ITN", in other words, they move their goalpost every time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "It's in the media for a few days" isn't enough of a criterion for ITN, on top of being WP:CRYSTAL to some extent. We don't post every big news story, we're still here to feature events that have some encyclopedic significance. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't post every little incremental improvement in the attempt to reach orbit and/or successful return to earth safely.<span id="Masem:1710436627042:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- despite attempts to recast an obvious failure as somehow "misleading", the test was indeed an obvious failure -- per Reuters, a core objective was inexplicably skipped, and the rocket subsequently destroyed itself during re-entry. What SpaceX failed to demonstrate on top of Starship's re-entry failure and the skipped engine re-ignition test was an attempt to fly the Super Heavy rocket back to Earth, part of SpaceX's routine strategy of recovering its launch boosters for re-use.. We do not need to cover every failed test. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe when it's successful, which it wasn't today. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It wasn't a complete mission, nor did it actually enter orbit. (it achieved "orbital velocity" but it was a suborbital trajectory) We don't know exactly what happened to cause a loss of telemetry before its planned end, merely that it disintegrated before its planned impact in the Indian Ocean. Overall, this was merely an incremental improvement over IFT2, which we did not post either; hindsight consensus seems that we shouldn't have even posted IFT1. Posting these stories strays from focusing on major news developments and into simply being a launch ticker, which isn't the purpose of ITN. Likely the first (prospective, anyway) such noteworthy mission would be the first test landing of the Starship HLS (uncrewed) on the Moon, as this would be the first such mission that'd fit within the ITN/R guidelines. Nottheking (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Haitian Crisis
Continuing to receive coverage and frequent article updates since the recent related blurb rolled off. And, of course, the crisis in question is still ongoing. The Henry blurb is still outstanding, but Henry has yet to tender his resignation as president either way and I do not believe that should stop us from posting the broader ongoing nom. The target I selected may not be the best option (Gang war in Haiti could also be in play), but that's negotiable. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support due to near continous notability over the past month. Lukt64 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support due to notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment There's also ongoing gang war in Haiti. Unless it's considered an offshoot of the crisis, could be the target article. Brandmeistertalk  08:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability Pksois23 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - while the crisis has existed in some form since 2018, the current surge of activity is clearly significant. This doesn't have to be up for a long time (and indeed I hope for the sake of the people of Haiti that it isn't) but it is clear relevant now. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The Haitian crisis (2018–present) article is not ideal for ongoing right now. It seems like the latest date discussed on the article was 12 March, and before that, it was 5 March. A better candidate would be the Gang war in Haiti article. It has mentioned dates up until 13 March. The Haitian crisis article has now been updated, so it is no longer a problem. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned which article is chosen but are you really going to call the latter article a better candidate due to a one day difference? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The main problem wasn't that there was only a one day difference. The main problem was that, while the Gang war in Haiti article had information for about every day since the prison storming, the Haitian crisis article had a gap between 5 and 12 March. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This "problem" has been fixed. More importantly, the redundancies have been eliminated (at least for now).  At 80K the entry for the six-year crisis is relatively lean with the key points covered, though the coverage of the assassination of Jovenel Moïse is a bit too lean.  If the same were to be done for the gang war article it might be suitable for the main page at some later date. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 15:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion, the article now looks significantly better. In fact, the Haitian crisis article is now far more updated than the Gang war article, having dates up to 17 March (where as the latter article only goes up until 13 March). Gödel2200 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again, I'm not opposed to it. It just feels like both articles have a lot of overlap and I'm not really seeing how the gang war itself is distinct from the rest of the crisis. Ideally we would have the larger crisis article and a timeline article, though both really are formatted like timeline articles. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support due to ongoing notability (especially with the question of Henry's potential resignation), although Gang war in Haiti is a better target per Gödel2200. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The map in the article needs a bit of work PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding Gang war in Haiti per Gödel2200; the issue has had repeated news coverage. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the move to ongoing, with target article as Gang war in Haiti per Brandmeister and Gödel2200. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding Haitian crisis (2018–present), oppose adding Gang war in Haiti in its current state. The latter needs serious work as it relies on tweets, contains claims that fail verification, and does not even mention the larger context (the Canadian sanctions and UN report implicating previous governments in gang activity, for example). I've updated the former article to include this information which gives a wider perspective.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 01:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Haiti doesnt really get coverage from western media very much. Lukt64 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not really true, as both of the entries attest. In particular, Jacqueline Charles at the Miami Herald regularly publishes on Haiti. The trouble is that it's very difficult to know what to believe from the multitude of sources. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 02:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability The Haitian crisis article was previously outdated, but it now seems to be of sufficient quality. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Haitian crisis article is well-updated now, don't see much holding this off the front page. The   Kip  06:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and replace Myanmar with it - As this is getting way more media attention and blurb-worthy material. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why replace Myanmar? Myanmar is getting just as much attention in the media and is still getting extremely consistent updates to the article. Lukt64 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment 360,000+ displaced, no President, Prime Minister, Legislature. Schools, courts, businesses closed, reports of 15 dead again yesterday; still not mentioned on ITN.  Odd. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 11:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that ITN can be quite odd at times. The good news is this one doesn't seem to be controversial and is likely to be posted soon. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support posting Haitian Crisis now per article updates. A decent amount of information from the last 48 hours, regularly being updated as more news breaks on the topic. No question on notability, I think we're all in agreement there. There's no need to remove Myanmar as one editor suggested, though if they feel strongly about removing that entry or if others agree, that can be its own thread so this one doesn't get too unfocused. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – robertsky (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Marcello Gandini
Italian Car designer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now There are 2 uncited paragraphs. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bernard L. Schwartz
240F:7A:6253:1:424:460D:B1EE:9F7C (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding career as businessman at Loral. Only 1 sentence in the body of the article. Additionally, the lede mentions he was CEO of BLS investments, and this isn't mentioned in the article body.  Spencer T• C 03:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yong Soon Min
240F:7A:6253:1:424:460D:B1EE:9F7C (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Change Healthcare Cyberattack
Ongoing hack that is now under federal investigation. Apparently many healthcare providers are under threat of going under due to the ransomware attack. --User:Sawerchessread(talk)


 * Oppose such an investigation is part of a long-tail of this type of story. Not going to be daily coverage of this in the news sufficient for ongoing. --M asem (t) 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, but the opening of an investigation would not be the notable event, but the event that is being investigated (which happened many days ago). Gödel2200 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per above. The   Kip  06:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose At least until somebody tells me where this is. (I can, of course guess that only Americans would talk about something in their own country without even thinking of the need to tell the 95% of people aren't Americans where it is. Correct me if I'm guessing wrong, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now an article for the attack itself: 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith nomination, and while I do think it ought to be phrased in a way which makes headline accessible to non-Americans, that's not my reason for opposing. As Masem and Godel observe - this isn't the newsworthy event, it's a routine part of its aftermath. I don't know if the original event was suitable for ITN or not, but this, as they say, ain't it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Julia Wong Kcomt
Chinese Peruvian writer. Her publications (in Spanish) need sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now It’s mostly good, but the “Selected works” section needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aribert Reimann
One of the most important German composers of opera and lied. I wish I had more time for more prose but on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ira Millstein
Thriley (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Neophyte Patriarch of Bulgaria
Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, the article is in rough shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality - Citation tags Prodrummer619 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Alexander (polio survivor)
Guinness World Record holder for longest time spent inside an iron lung. Died 2 days ago, death announced today I believe. Date of birth is uncited, and there are probably a few more errors that I seriously cba to figure out.  q w 3 r t y  10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment once the citatisn are fixed, id say that this arguably is notable for a blurb. Id rather have it in RD though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukt64 (talk • contribs)
 * Support once citations are fixed for RD Lukt64 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is fully cited and appears ready. Flibirigit (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but absolutely oppose blurb since the manner of the death is not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted A remarkable man. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;It's not the fact of his death that makes it notable, but what it represents. He was the last person in the world to still be using an iron lung. With his passing, iron lungs will now go the way of lobotomies, trepanning, and bloodletting. I don't know if a support a blurb, but I think it's reasonable to give it consideration. Kurtis (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I see, it is not at all certain that the currently still alive Martha Lillard is the last person in an iron lung. Either way, it is not Alexander. I sure do hope someday we can blurb the eradication of polio, but until then I don't think such a blurb is appropriate. He was not quite a public figure like the people we usually blurb. I do appreciate the expansion of the article, though. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

March 12
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39725605/bill-plummer-backup-c-big-red-machine-era-dies-76

(Posted) RD: Bill Plummer
Still needs a few more sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support seems adequate. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kim Rudd
Former Canadian MP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 286 words of prose. Anything else to write about? Career in business in Cobourg? --PFHLai (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I expanded the article & I think it’s good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new materials, Blaylockjam10. With 500+ words of prose, this wikibio is now comfortably in start class. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found no problems. This wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Mixner
Mooonswimmer 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Multiple paragraphs without citations, and a wholly inadequate lead section. Flibirigit (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, valid orange tags. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Carmen
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vital One (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2024 March 12 (UTC)


 * Support. He put out big hits on the charts. Sad to hear he is dead. Urbanracer34 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks in good shape with chart stats, copy cited. CoatCheck (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged unsourced paragraphs (even before the above "supports").—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support one of the most iconic cartoon antiheroes of the last quarter century *Puts on reading glasses* and Oppose There are wholly unsourced paragraphs. I just fixed a part of the personal life where information about presumably living and presumably private people was "sourced" to a dead tweet that didn't mention them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support No more citation needed tags. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you Ollieisanerd for adding citations to the article. The previous objections have now been addressed. The Vital One (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for RD. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 23:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Boss
Heatrave (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is currently disorganised. I think the "Life and Career" section should be split into sections to make it easier to read. Additionally, there is a CN tag. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above, "Life and career" should be split out to separate career and personal life. Discography is mostly unsourced, and some sources being used there are not permitted as per WP:RSP (including depreciated rateyourmusic and Tunefind which is not a RS). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Discography and Videography sections are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Portuguese election
ITNR election. The article is in good shape, with substantial referenced prose in the 'results' and 'aftermath' sections. The complication is that official results have been announced for 226 of the 230 seats - the four reserved for overseas voters won't be counted until 20 March. Normally that wouldn't matter, but with the AD and PS currently separated by only two seats it could change the winner (though almost certainly won't, given the way those seats are allocated proportionately). I still think it's better to post now than wait more than a week, by which point it will be old news. Reliable sources are reporting the AD as having 'won the election', despite those four outstanding seats. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment it is indeed true that the reliable sources have already headlined an AD victory. Additionally, the PS leader has conceded and refers to his party as the new opposition. I agree that despite the mathematical possibility, it would be pedantic if Wikipedia waits longer than the actual candidates to declare a winner. Completely different system I'm aware, but I'm sure Wikipedia doesn't wait for the electoral college to finalise the American election after the losing candidate concedes. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the RS angle of things, I simply don't think we can say AD won because, well, they haven't yet. I get the desire to get this posted now, but an official announcement of results would generally qualify as the news item still being in the news. If we want to post now, I think we would have to say AD is "expected" or "projected" to win a plurality. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to qualify the blurb with 'expected' or 'projected', given the technical (but again, highly unlikely) possibility that PS won >67% of the overseas vote. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs work The blurb presents this as a win but the result seems fragmented with little prospect of a majority government and a further election likely next year. So, it's more a case of the previous government losing its majority than someone winning.  The big news seems to be that the new Chega party was successful so that there's now a three-way split preventing a majority.  The blurb needs work to explain this better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "A narrow plurality" to me sounds exactly like it is, but if "loses its clear majority" is accurate then that might be a reasonable alternative too. That would give more context on history here. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying something like 'PS loses its majority, PSD set up a new alliance called AD that is now the largest in parliament, and Chega came third with more seats than expected' would be a very long blurb. Do you have a suggestion of how to describe all those outcomes concisely? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Any further comments or replies? It has been almost 48 hours since the nomination and hardly anyone has commented. Marking as (needs attention). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Making current headlines across newspapers in Europe. Definitely noteworthy. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on quality There is one cn, but the article looks fine otherwise. Oppose on quality There is an unsourced Politics of Portugal section, but besides for that, the article doesn't seem to have any major problems (though there is one cn). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've cut most of that section, merged the remaining sentence into the previous section, and added a reference. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Article seems good. Notable. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 16:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that "narrow plurality" has been changed to "wins the most seats." We were already discussing whether "narrow plurality" sounded too positive for what was practically a loss, so I am very surprised to see it changed to make it sound like a full-on victory. Could we change this back? (Should I be asking this at WP:ERRORS? I never know..) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Percy Adlon
Internationally famous film maker, still needs more sources and I have no more time today. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding while I was out! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I brought him back for one more chance - added just yesterday, substantially improved that day, and no comment yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Much of the Awards table is still in need of references. Some bullet-points in the Filmography section need extra sources for secondary info (e.g. awards). --PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know who designed it this way - a lot of it is duplicate. I'll see what I can do, but it was a long day already. I doubt that the nominations are actually needed, next to so many won. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fell asleep. Too late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chien Tung-ming
Taiwanese Paiwan politician. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is properly cited with no other concerns found. Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking for REFs for date and place of birth. Help, anyone, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's now a footnote for the DoB. Thanks, Blaylockjam10! --PFHLai (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dorie Ladner
American civil rights activist. The single-sentence intro needs some expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Lead is too short, plus two citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The lead’s long enough now & everything else is good. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Barnett (whistleblower)
Former Boeing employee, whistleblower. Dead in an alleged suicide on March 9, death announced March 11. DecafPotato (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The article is orange tagged for the lead being too short. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MonarchOfTerror: I have expanded the lead section. Does it look better now? DecafPotato (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks fine now. Support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - per the article expansion, it’s ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks fine now. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Ready for posting. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Bird
Irish journalist and news correspondent, Short but sufficient article Josey Wales Parley 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article doesn't appear to have any problems. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Well-sourced and ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Malachy McCourt
Thriley (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The article currently has four CNs. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The section on his book A Monk Swimming has zero footnotes. The rest of the prose now has 5 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, I've resolved all citation needed tags and article is now well-sourced! (Courtesy pings to and !) :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tidying up the section on his writing, Tails Wx. --PFHLai (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Wallinger
Leader of the rock band World Party. Article needs some work - It has an orange tag for a lack of sources. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 03:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Question If the only free image can't adequately illustrate the subject, can we use a fair-use one instead?  Bremps  ...  07:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Comment: I am not as familiar with image use issues as I should be, but is this Flickr image one that would be appropriate to use with appropriate attribution? KConWiki (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: I have cleaned up all the instances of citation needed as far as I can tell. Would someone be able to take a look at the article and see if they agree, and if so remove the CN template at the top? I think this article is close to being ready to post to RD, and may be ready now. As noted above, having a different image would be nice, but I want to leave that to someone who is more familiar with image issues than I am. THanks to all. KConWiki (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cleanup work! The article looks good to me, but as the nominator, I don't think I can add a support vote. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Cleanup is well done, and I have removed the article template. Article is ready for RD posting. Jusdafax (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is File:Karl Wallinger playing guitar.jpg really in PD? --PFHLai (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No and it is now up for deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, Secretlondon. It's now removed from the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lewis Jones
Welsh rugby union and rugby league player  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article seems to be of sufficiently good quality and sourcing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Decent article, sourcing fairly good Josey Wales Parley 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Several paragraphs in the middle of the Rugby league career section could use more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * just done that.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 14:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ariel Henry resignation
Folks might want to merge with the gang war blurb.  Bremps  ...  04:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article is comprehensive and well-cited (only a small case of overcite in lead to fix), oppose merge as the gang war blurb is about to roll off. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait per Johndavies Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose he hasn't actually resigned. Stephen 05:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait He hasn't resigned yet, they said it will take effect when the presidential council consisting of 7 voting members and 2 non-voting members is formed. I watched the press conference and they didn't say how long this process is going to take. Hours, days, weeks? Johndavies837 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually happens, then support. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I also added an alt blurb that was proposed by on an accidental duplicate nomination of this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait The articles look good quality wise, but the resignation hasn't actually happened yet. I also don't think this is ITNR yet, and will only be if someone replaces Henry (I think it would be ideal to wait for that to happen). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is just a minor and expected development from what we've already got blurbed. Adjust the blurb by a couple of words if necessary. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The gang war blurb is rolling off, while this is ITN/R, so presumed to be independently important. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 01:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not ITNR. I made a mistake when I pasted the template in.  Bremps  ...  04:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not at all a minor development if you consider the broader context of the Haitian crisis since the Moïse assassination. The rise and now fall of Ariel Henry as a self-imposed pseudo-dictator has been a very uncomfortable issue within OAS/Caricom politics (i.e. the debate of whether legitimization of his seizure of power is a stabilizing or destabilizing force, which would affects things like aid shipments and such). Curbon7 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The deal seems to be falling apart, according to latest news reports. I suggest closing this nomination until he actually resigns. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ongoing - The amount of blurb-worthy stories coming out of Haiti and the massive media attention surrounding the gang war makes it worthy of an ongoing slot imo, I'd recommend replacing Myanmar with it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(new) RD: Percy Adlon
Internationally famous film maker, still needs more sources and I have no more time today. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding while I was out! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yutaka Yoshie
Japanese professional wrestler. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article looks to be in good shape, and the death was certainly unexpected and tragic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted): Oscars
Just completed, will have sources in a bit. Article probably also needs ceremony updates. M asem (t) 02:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To add, the film's article is in good shape to also be featured, but the Oscars one needs to be first and foremost. Also for pictures, that gives us Nolan, Murphy, Downey Jr., and Göransson for possible pictures to be used here (all individual winners). --M asem (t) 02:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question maybe add the Oppenheimer poster as an image for the section? Kasperquickly (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Main page images must be free of copyright issues (eg, not non-free images). Movie poster falls under non-free. Hence why we typically use one of the winners to be featured. ITNR normally includes best film and best director, but since they are the same here, any reasonable image of the film's cast + crew could work M asem (t) 02:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb with picture; I support any blurb appearing on the main page though. If somebody else thinks people such as Cillian Murphy ought to be featured in the picture instead, please let me know. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 02:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that my altblurb has replaced Masem's original blurb—you can see his original blurb and my blurb side-by-side here.<span id="3PPYB6:1710160863621:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 12:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb  if ITNR normally includes best film and best director, we should feature the director rather than the actor in the picture. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The original blurb included no image while the altblurb did when I supported, I'm now clarifying my support now that the original blurb has been removed. Both articles are adequately sourced. feminist🩸 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note We already promoted Oppenheimer and Nolan for some time starting February 19 (Murphy was also likewise considered). That may be a fair reason to IAR on the R bit, if most are so inclined. I'm leaning that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how posting this again would be promotional tbh. We are simply reflecting how society has decided to recognize films. And Oppenheimer is no longer played in cinemas in most parts of the world, so any promotional effect is limited. feminist🩸 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support We can alternate between Nolan, Murphy, Downey Jr., and Göransson for the picture, per nom. Don't see the need to do anything different that Oppenheimer won both BAFTA and the Oscars. Davey2116 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a need, more a mere feeling of mild weirdness to highlight the same articles three weeks (or nine days) apart. It's not like they've changed much, besides the bit about the seven Oscars. Of course, there might be something worth learning in the Oscar article about things that aren't Oppenheimer et al, so that's a breath of fresh air. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support As per others Centuries123 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on quality, neutral on Feminist's proposal to IAR and not post. DecafPotato (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean InedibleHulk? feminist🩸 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, when it fails miserably, it's my idea... InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Whomever replaced the original blurb with the altblurb, please don't do that, particularly after !votes have been made, because you then risk seeing !votes that were made to support a vanished altblurb or the original blurb and not an altblurb. I know my initial blurb didn't include any explicit picture, but that's a small change to the original blurb to include the picture mention. --M asem (t) 12:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The awards article is rather boring but does meet our minimum requirements so is OK to post. Don't bold the link to the the film article - the news is the awards. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on quality Both articles seem to be of sufficient quality. I don't really see how this would be WP:NOTPROMOTION. The fact that someone or some movie has won multiple awards in a year that we usually post doesn't seem to be a problem to me. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITNR and appears to meet the customary quality standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Smurrayinchester 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guy Touvron
Legendary trumpet player, known in the world by thousands of concerts and more than 100 recordings, with a sad end to his career. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be of sufficient quality. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Ritchie (gridiron football)

 * Oppose There's an orange tag and a few sentences are missing citations. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Abcmaxx (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Change to support as issues fixed. ; nice work! Abcmaxx (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, took a bit of effort, but I think I've taken care of all unsourced issues in the article! Courtesy pings to and . :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 16:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan New President

 * Comment In anticipation of confused replies, yes, this is different to the general election and prime minister also recently elected. (However, I would not be opposed to combining blurbs.) Kingsif (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Combine blurbs Neat solution that avoids the question of whether it's worth a separate blurb. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb for the new prime minister is stale now, and I don't think this is notable enough on its own. Combine blurbs per above. While I don't think this is notable enough to post on its own, it wouldn't hurt to also mention the presidential election while the blurb for the general election is still up. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shouldn't it be "becomes"? Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 18:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added  Bremps  ...  04:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Combine blurbs as per Chaotic Enby and Gödel2200 --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a combined blurb, but strong oppose to any blurb mentioning the verb "to become" in any form because it was an "election" and he was elected through an electoral vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The 2024 Pakistani presidential election article needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither 2024 Pakistani general election nor 2024 Pakistani presidential election are suitably referenced to qualify for main page exposure (and the former is already blurbed!). The general election article is the next one to roll off. Hence, combining doesn't seem immediately feasible. More work is needed.  Schwede 66  20:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a ceremonial position, does not administer the executive. Stephen 04:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This, but also everyone knows the election was fake. Would people here post the upcoming election in Russia? Or the North Korean ones? Come on..........Kasperquickly (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's ceremonial then who administers the executive?
 * Traumnovelle (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we already posted the Prime Minister's election, why would we post the President's when he has no actual power? Just let it roll off ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * shouldn't these both be referred to as re-appointments, since they previously held the positions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment -- this has rolled off ITN. It's stale now, so I guess this is moot now. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Close as stale per Rockstone35's rationale.  Bremps  ...  06:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David E. Harris

 * Support This article easily has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Guy Boutilier

 * Support A few unsourced statements that could maybe be resolved, but it doesn't seem like enough to uphold posting. Kafoxe (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much unsourced info, a few paragraphs without sources and some stray sentences too. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ramya Wanigasekara
Sri Lankan actor, singer, and radio broadcaster. Titanciwiki talk / contrib 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait That awards section has a citation, but clicking it does nothing. Well, not nothing. But goes nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference goes to a webpage with a lot of broken elements.  Bremps  ...  16:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, now it does. Another hour, maybe even better. Never give up! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, nevermind. It was already archived when I got there, but I clicked the wrong part. Abandon all hope! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How come many of her awards were not mentioned in the prose? Not important? --PFHLai (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jonathan Hunt

 * Wait A few unsourced bits and maybe some missing information, but almost there. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article seems to be well-sourced now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Procedural support RIP to the Minister of Wine and Cheese This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – I've added a ton of references and cut out some material for which I could not find any sources. What's there should now satisfy the requirements. I've added myself to the credits list.  Schwede 66  22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Biraj Adhikari

 * Abcmaxx (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, added references and re-wrote the article's "Political career" section and expanded the lead. I think it's good to go now! (Pinging !) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now, nice work! Apologies I couldn't help out. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Françoise Garner
French soprano who learned belcanto in Rome and brought French elegance to La Scala and the Arena di Verona. Article was there, but sourcing needed expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is satisfactory, AGFing french sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Lawrence
American singer and actor. gobonobo + c 19:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article already looks good, should be fine to post. PolarManne (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Article well-referenced and tag-free. Ready for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Akira Toriyama

 * Strong Support once we get additional information. He was the creator of one of the largest intellectual properties ever, after all. Hard to imagine he wasn’t notable enough. RPH (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Arguably the most famous and influential manga author of all time, certainly in the top 3. Article is already in good shape. PolarManne (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Absolutely legendary creator. GamerPro64  03:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He created Dragon Ball, he deserves one.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I added Oricon and the Mainichi Shimbun as sources to this nomination. Mlb96 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Transformative figure in anime, known worldwide. RIP. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Absolutely one of, if not the, most influential figure in his entire industry. Known worldwide, had multiple projects in production. Easy blurb. Parabolist (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Easily one of if not the most influential modern manga artists. Rest in peace. Link20XX (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Definitely at the top of his field, his work is known worldwide. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Absolutely transformative figure in Japanese Animation, Toriyama was the giant whose shoulders everyone else stood on Spman (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Influential in his field and has global recognition. Article is in good shape.  Sounder Bruce  03:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Lots of unreferenced material in the Works section, which is probably too detailed anyway. Stephen 04:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - There should be no question here. He is in top of his field and very important in the development of animanga fandom & industry and JRPG genre of games through Dragon Quest in the late 20th century. Until then there should be some fixes on the article, then we're good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality no RB or Blurb until the works are properly sourced. --M asem (t) 04:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the works section is still largely unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 04:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Support He's one of the single most influential persons in regards to anime and manga. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Without a doubt one of the most influential people in anime and manga, and arguably, in modern Asian literature. Fulserish (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Once the sourcing issues are resolved, then strong support blurb per above. lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 05:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb — Influential figure in manga, but the medium is too vast and arguably a fraction of entertainment sales to warrant a blurb from any one figure. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Animanga is indeed very vast ever since 21st century, but Akira Toriyama has influenced a lot of mangakas and artists (incl. One Piece and Naruto mangaka) on this field of entertainment, not to mention the burgeoning anime fandom in late 1990s and early 2000s following Japanese economic recession in the early 1990s. I can't understate how popular anime is across the world, since their mainstreaming in 2010s alongside K-Pop. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fourth best selling manga in history, and Dragon Ball television and film series is massively popular in Latin America, Europe, North America, and elsewhere. It's a widely popular series with huge national appeal and has had a following since the 80's to today. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - although I’m not personally a fan, the man’s impact on anime/manga, now a huge media item, is undeniable. Oppose on quality for now, though - it’s a GA, so mostly good, but there’s some missing citations. The   Kip  06:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, but leaning oppose I often find this page to be very informative regarding recent deaths and other news. I mean no disrespect to the late Akira Toriyama, who did much to advance his field and who passed away somewhat prematurely.  My condolences to his family, friends and fans.  However, the whole anime/manga industry is pretty niche (or maybe I'm just getting old).  Although there may be significant overlap between manga fans and Wikipedia editors, the general public doesn't pay much attention to it.  Given the high standards which this forum has established for itself for blurb-worthy content, touting Mandela-Thatcher rules and excluding many notable and significant individuals, personally, I find the near universal support for a blurb here for the creator of Dragon Ball to be, well, among the most humorous things I've seen on the internet today.
 * Please don't take this comment as rude. I appreciate the work that many of you do.  Keep up the good work!Ryan Reeder (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Animanga is more closer to a pop cultural juggernaut today than it was in prior decades, though in some parts of the world I could see why it is a niche. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No disrespect, but I think it's a somewhat uninformed opinion to suggest that Japanese media is niche. See List of highest-grossing media franchises. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I find it surprising to see that Pokémon has had 1.6 times greater sales than Mickey Mouse and nearly double that of Star Wars. But genuine question--why does Satoshi Tajiri's Wikipedia article only have about 2,000 words, while Walt Disney and George Lucas are around 11,000 and 9,000 words, respectively?  I would say that Disney's and Lucas' names are much more widely recognized, at least in the Western, English-speaking world, which is the audience served by this Wikipedia.
 * Also, Dragon Ball is down around Grand Theft Auto, Angry Birds, Thomas and Friends and Fortnite, and I wouldn't consider their creators' deaths blurb-worthy either, at least not by the Mandela-Thatcher standard. But that ship has sailed. Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is no surprise that there are far more English-language news articles written about George Lucas and far more English-language sources about the legacy of Walt Disney, but we've long agreed that ITN is not only for English news. One could also argue that the impact of Dragon Ball on manga and anime is far more transformational than the impact Angry Birds had on mobile video games, but that's neither here nor there as the notability question seems more than settled by now. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Well-known artist in multiple countries, both Japan and the entirety of the West. Article looks ready to me, given that there are no citation needed tags remaining. 64.231.206.241 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see all the strong support on significance and I fully agree. I will say that the death and legacy sections should be updated further, with more detail. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, second in importance to Osamu Tezuka only probably, and arguably the first to really make manga popular in e.g. Europe. A defining figure. Fram (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - per above. Creator of one of the most popular works of fiction out there, and an inspiration for many artists to follow. Rest in peace. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 09:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Splitting out a problematic and woefully under-sourced section into a completely new woefully under-sourced article to get this posted on ITN is very subpar editing, I think. It's supposed to be a Good Article! Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This here. It is 100% inappropriate to sweep the unsourced works section to a separate article. Breaking it out was not required as there was no SIZE issue. That needs to be undone at this point too. M asem (t) 13:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as per Black Kite. Removing a whole unsourced section so the article looks better for ITN seems like a clear attempt by  to WP:GAME the system, and should not be tolerated. Same as how ITN has been cracking down on people doing these splits for unsourced music/film lists for musicians/actors. The current version has insufficient sourced detail on the works, and therefore doesn't meet ITN quality standards, and this will be the case until the unsourced content is re-added with sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the extended table/list is required for the article, but I agree that the Works section should be further re-expanded before posting. Rather than WP:GAME, you could see this as akin to WP:TNT, clearing away the uncited mess to be replaced by something better. Of course the problem is still there, however... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an accurate summary of Wikipedia policy. Poorly sourced material can always be removed. Mlb96 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Poorly sourced material should be sourced if possible. I'm sure most of the works could be sourced if there were a desire to do so. TNT is for when it isn't salvageable, and lots of that content would be salvageable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That usually applies to material that is not central or common to the specific topic. A list of works by a highly regarded artist and writer is central to that person and should not be removed because sources were lacking. If it were removing one or two completely obscure works from the list, sure, but not the full list. M asem (t) 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's quite a bold, and somewhat "not an AGF" accusation to me. JASWE hasn't even spoken in this page so far. Maybe they just saw that "Oh, seems like this could be split", and WP:BOLDLY did it. We all have differing views after all. How are you so sure that it's an attempt to WP:GAME? S5A-0043 Talk 07:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Observation Perhaps just goes to show, more people may have heard of the world's most famous politicians, but cartoon fans actually respect their heroes and buy their work. Anyway, he was 68, which isn't that old. I'm not opposed, just keep it clean. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, once the cn tags on the list are resolved either by removal or sourced. I am of the opinion that not all entries need to be sourced, but at the minimum, follow the guidelines at WP:CSC. – robertsky (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, this definitely has the needed quality as a GA. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Wrote the fourth best-selling manga of all time. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb definitely notable enough, well-known in multiple countries. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb There is only a three sentence update about his death. While he was very notable during his life, his death itself isn't notable. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * His death got an article on the BBC and CNN within hours of announcement, it was clearly notable. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is notable in the sense of having gotten news articles written about it very quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that his death does not have significant Wikipedia coverage. Without that significant Wikipedia coverage, I do not think a blurb is warranted. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement that the death itself of a notable person be significant to require a blurb. Where the death (and most often the funeral and other memoriable services that follow) are covered in depth by sources, that's a fair reason for a blurb, but by no means the only reason for one. Instead, when the death is from natural causes, we should be looking to the person's relative importance, impact, and legacy on their field to judge if a blurb is appropriate, and there's clear indicators, already present pre-death, why Akira was a key figure in manga and video games.<span id="Masem:1709912652667:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "when the death is from natural causes, we should be looking to the person's relative importance, impact, and legacy on their field to judge if a blurb is appropriate." Should we? There may be no requirement that the death itself be notable, but I also don't see any requirement that we must assess the notability a person has to determine if they are blurb worthy. In fact, if we went along this route, I would be inclined to make the argument that the only people who are 'notable' enough to get a blurb are those who have significant Wikipedia coverage on their death. But regardless, as far as I can tell, both of these view points are valid. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not the case that we only post blurbs when the death itself get significant coverage. As to when we post otherwise is still heavily debated, but aspects of importance and impact are common criteria. But we have never expected the death to be heavily covered for a blurb. M asem (t) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be a common practice to assess blurbs of notable deaths based on the notability of the given person, but I don't see how this in any way discredits opposing based upon no significant Wikipedia coverage. I'm not saying that we should never be assessing if a blurb is warranted based on notability, but rather that we should take that into account together with the coverage of the death; assessing the blurb based upon Wikipedia coverage or assessing based upon notability are not mutually exclusive, and my argument is using the former. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We have never in the past looked to the amount of coverage of the death by natural causes as a reason to blurb. When the death is unusual, that's a different matter. When the death is by natural causes, significant attention to the death may be a reason to blurb, but never the sole reason to blurb. M asem (t) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the amount of coverage should never be the "sole reason to blurb", but I also think it should go the other way: the notability of a person during their life shouldn't be the sole reason for a blurb; both of these factors should be satisfied. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can certainly talk about the respectives and long-form obits a person gets above and beyond simple obits as a factor, but those also have to be present and documented in the article, if that legacy is not already present. Just that those aren't expected to be documented as part of their death, as you stated in your original post. M asem (t) 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, the fact that it is not "expected" that there is significant Wikipedia coverage of someone's death does not mean this is an invalid reason to oppose. I do not agree with the common practice of posting blurbs solely on notability during life, and I am saying we should take both factors into account. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gödel2200, RDs as blurbs have long been understood to be for people who lived exceptional lives and were at the top of their respective fields. I understand that you feel this should change, and that's okay. Every RD-as-a-blurb nomination will meet some resistance, some more than others. But I think it's best that you accept that you're in the minority on this. You've made your point, and you've generated a very long back-and-forth in the process. If I weren't replying, I would have collapsed it myself to make the wider discussion more readable. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's worth pointing out the article for Brian Mulroney, who is currently blurbed, also has three sentences about his death. The manner in which they died doesn't need to be notable, just the impact they've had on society. PolarManne (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not making an argument that the manner of death needs to be notable for a blurb to be posted, in fact, far from it. I consider the amount of Wikipedia coverage of a given person's death to be a significant factor in deciding if they are notable enough for a blurb. I think RD blurbs should only be used in extremely exceptional cases, and the deaths in those cases almost always have a lot of Wikipedia coverage. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Most notable manga/comic artists of all time. Nyescum (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Along with most of the support blurbs, he created Dragon Ball which is one of the most notable media franchises of all time. Sincerely, Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It appears citation concerns were resolved this morning. I agree with many above on his notability and the impact he brought to the manga/comic industry. --Engineerchange (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And to the toy industry. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They were not: ppeople just shuffled the list of works to a separate page to hide the lack of sourcing there. That's got to be sourced before we post, because otherwise that's just sweeping dust under the rug.<span id="Masem:1709912706207:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More like cleaning your room by cramming everything into your closet and hoping the door doesn't spring open from the pressure. Kurtis (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb—Per all above me, an iconic Manga artist who had an indelible impact on popular culture, both in Japan and abroad. This support is, ad always, contingent upon the article being well sourced and of adequate quality. Kurtis (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb DBZ is a very significant, notable manga. Pretty much everyone knows it. I've already seen a lot of people talking about this guy's death. Setarip (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb DBZ is a popular manga, people would want to know this, I think it's notable AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Clearly notable for his work and transformative within the field of Japanese manga and animation.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: As RD blurbs appear to be trending from an exceptional to a regular occurrence (this discussion hasn't closed yet, but it seems to be trending towards support for a blurb), perhaps a compromise for certain notable deceased persons is to have their photograph placed as the main image, with "(pictured)" next to their name under the Recent Deaths ticker (see right)? Morgan695 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I'm not proposing an end to the practice of doing blurbs for recent deaths, just proposing another option for noting deaths without doing a blurb. Also just realizing now that I forgot to italicize "(pictured)" in the mockup I did. Morgan695 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We have done this before, and I wouldn't be opposed because I still think we should move away from blurbing RDs. Kingsif (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, and this should be reasonable if none of the other blurbs have pictures or the picture has become stale. (I am still brainstorming an idea that would allow automatic picture rotation that could incorporate RDs with free pictures too, but that's not a simple task yet) M asem (t) 20:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also support this idea, and also support moving away from blurbing RDs. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. RD blurbs can fill ITN blurb space rather quickly, and ITN blurbs should be more focused on the serious events happening around the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Not just known for his work on Dragon Ball but also Chronotrigger and blue dragon. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb as he was one of the greatest and most influential manga artists of all time. I’d say that he was in manga what Stan Lee was in comics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Manga is comics, just in another direction and language. In the whole panel-based story art game, Stan Lee's "vision" was far more influential, spawning a hundred times the characters, 80 billion more dollars and two more decades. It's more reasonable to put Toriyama up there with Hergé and his so-called bandes dessinées, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's the nomination for Stan Lee -- a blurb posted in about an hour. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment If you are coming to add yet another "Support Blurb" we've clearly passed that line, but this cannot be posted until List of Akira Toriyama's works is properly sourced, and I would recommend fixing that first. --M asem  (t) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding reliable English language sources to cite his authorship of 40 year old Japanese comic books, it’s probably not going to happen. What an absurd demand. Spman (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ridiculous, required by WP:ITNQUALITY. Or maybe users shouldn't create WP:CFORKs for the sole purpose of trying to get this ITN passed with no effort of improving article sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous because he’s a Japanese artist who created the bulk of his work in Japan and outside of the main thing he’s noted for, most of that work has zero traction outside of Japan. Expecting English Language editors to find foreign language sources to cite his works that literally no one disputes his authorship of is a ridiculous demand to move forward on this. Spman (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Works that are notable on their own (that is, the blue-linked ones) presumably can go without sources as his authorship should be on the blue-linked page, but those that have been included without links do need sources. And while they may be obscure Japanese works, the fact someone added them to en.wiki means they know they exist. We don't need secondary coverage, but appropriate reliable sources that simply address authorship. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Also just doing some searching found me this book with the first work on the list sourced. [ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dragon_Ball_Culture_Volume_1/JYvmBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Nazo+no+Rein+Jakku%22&pg=PT63&printsec=frontcover] That probably has a lot more that can be used. So no, not impossible at all.<span id="Masem:1709928759340:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite us being the English Wikipedia, sources do not have to be in English, per WP:NONENG. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement for sources having to be in English. Don't make up rules that don't exist, .  Schwede 66  22:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, and support moving away from blurbing RDs in general. We don't need a two-tiered system of death honors. Of course, there are cases where the death is its own story that is separately ITN-worthy (like, a non-ceremonial monarch dying and being replaced would still be WP:ITN/R), but it shouldn't just be "important person dies", as important as the person is. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's a GA and so its quality is a given. To now require citations for the authorship of his works is absurd because such works are sources and presumably he is credited.  And the authority control is there to provide general backup for this in the world's major libraries.  As for his notability, his death was announced in a BBC radio bulletin that I heard while driving today and that's more prominence than the usual RD.  And a blurb is needed to explain who the guy was as the name alone is useless.  I've heard of DBZ but am not a fan and so his name is not familiar. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the article Akira Toriyama for ITN - so why should the separate article List of works by Akira Toriyama hold back the GA from being posted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the sub-article was spun off yesterday in an attempt to avoid referencing any of his works. Stephen 02:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So? And, additionally, almost everything on that list is referenced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very notable figure in the anime/manga industry. Centuries123 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - hard to see how there is anything other than a consensus to blurb this. I guess we're just waiting for an admin to come by to do it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Dragon Ball's not exactly my taste, but nonetheless I can tell how significant it is to the manga world. S5A-0043 Talk 08:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull image — The blurb image has been discovered to be copyrighted material and should be pulled. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akira Toriyama.jpg. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the heads up. Stephen 22:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Sweden's accession to NATO
Sweden is set to join today formally. Was on hold last time, it's about time we nominate this now. TwistedAxe  [contact]  14:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support although blurb can be improved and the article will likely be moved to Sweden in NATO like for Finland in NATO. (edit: I somehow hallucinated that move) Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Could someone maybe insert a fitting image as well? TwistedAxe   [contact]  14:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done (blurb and image), although if someone has an image of the accession ceremony it would be even better than the map! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The accession ceremony is set to be held on the 11th of March, although the treaty is set to come into force today. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can go with this image, and maybe update it when the accession ceremony happens if it's still on the main page by then (likely). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment one section is tagged as source less, and I spot a couple CNs floating around. M asem (t) 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wait until it is really, really, really set and fixed. Please! We can't risk anything now. Everyone on Swedish media is going: "For the love of..., don't jinx anything now." Cart (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All 31 member states have deposited their instruments of ratification and the US Department of State have confirmed that the treaty is in force as of today. There are no more "risks" Going to note that the PM has yet to deposit the instrument at 4PM UTC, in less than an hour. Still fitting to post it though considering everything will be done today and formal accession will conclude by the end of the day. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you had followed this as closely and for as long as we Swedes have, you wouldn't mind waiting that hour. We have become very jaded with all the things that have popped up along the process. Cart (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have followed this as long as the Swedes have considering I am Swedish ;) TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not so used to bumping into fellow Swedes here at ITN. More used to explaining things to Americans. ;-) Cart (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. TwistedAxe   [contact]  15:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Full membership has been announced, and the article looks good to go. Comment According to the table on the article, full membership hasn't taken effect yet. I would think it would be best to wait until full membership takes effect. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, we can polish up the article and make everything ready in the meantime. Cart (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Seems very notable. - Petjayso (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support we had brought it up earlier that we would like to nominate it once they had officially joined. It is very notable given the ongoing tensions between russia and nato. Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree however that we should clean up the article a bit if needed. Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait just a liiiiittle bit longer, we're almost at the point of full membership, but it's not yet there. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Done!!!! Go, go, go! Cart (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added 2 additional sources. It's official now. TwistedAxe   [contact]  16:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Lazy jannies ruining another good nom by sleeping all day instead of posting, sad 2600:100F:B1B9:3F82:141C:495C:DB68:F117 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get this up ASAP Moncoposig (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Either blurb is OK. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs work The lead of the nominated article has not been updated – its most recent date is July 2022. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * this is importent news. i agree. 2600:1700:8090:4440:B4B9:F680:424F:F9 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, with advice that we move quickly to get this up while it's timely. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support great news. Article looks good and it’s ready to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Appears uncontroversial. Per MOS, I've spelled out the number, omitted the wikilink to Sweden, and used the term "member state" that seems to be more commonly used by our articles than "member". The map still needs protection on Commons before it can be posted.  Sandstein   19:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein, I'm not a fan of the alterations you made to the blurb when you posted. thirty-second member state of NATO linking to Sweden–NATO relations is very much an MOS:EGG. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 06:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not more egg-y than the proposed blurbs, I think. I don't really see a good way to use the article title "Sweden–NATO relations" in the blurb.  Sandstein   07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Woohoo! Do I get an IKEA discount now? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You do if we get a Microsoft discount. Cart (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * comment: i thought i might mention that commons has a few photos of the ratification ceremony, including the one at right. dying (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Good idea, albeit too late I think. In 2 days, the flag is going to be raised at the NATO HQ in Brussels and we're most likely going to use that image when it happens. If we change it now to the suggested picture and then change it again to the flag being raised at Brussels, I think it would be too many changes being made. Keeping things more consistent by changing the picture fewer times is probably a better idea, unless people are ready to disagree with me. TwistedAxe   [contact]  03:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * good point, . i had made the suggestion anyway because i have a feeling that the toriyama blurb will be posted before monday if the sourcing issue is resolved by then.  also, when finland joined nato, i had  a number of pictures, including some from the ceremony at nato headquarters.  ultimately, one of the other images i had suggested was, so even if the nato blurb remains the top blurb at itn on monday, there is no guarantee that any images from that ceremony will be better than the ones we have currently.  dying (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Used a tighter crop of this one, as the Toriyama image turned out to be a probably copyvio. Let me know if you have any other suggestions, thanks. Stephen 22:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: John Kumah
Heatrave (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-sourced and looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncoposig (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Person is not really a household name, support RD article looks good enough for RD though. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He was deputy finance minister and a big face of the ruling party.  Heatrave (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RD The article is a little sparse in terms of prose, but I think it's of sufficient quality to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality correctly orange tagged. If fixed, RD is fine. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still orange-tagged for reading like a press release. Please fix. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the orange tag, as the current version of the wikibio does not read like a press release to me. However, I find the coverage lacking in info on his political career. How did he become deputy finance minister? What did he do while in office? Time is running out.... --PFHLai (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jose Concepcion Jr.
Filipino industrialist, activist, and politician. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Sheridan

 * Support No issues except that a lot of information is clumped together in one big paragraph, but the content itself is fine. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support slightly short but well sourced. I added paragraphs so that it wasn't one big block of texts. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The cn tags have been taken care of, so this has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pigcasso
South African painting pig. Death announced on 6 March. gobonobo + c 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, article looks very well rounded, hope she doesn't hog the main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No reference for death. Secretlondon (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Clarin news source given above has been used? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Seems very notable. - Petjayso (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks well-sourced and ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb We need a blurb for Picasso he is one of the most famous painters 2600:100F:B1BE:B43F:C83B:9B86:7653:A0F9 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's Pigcasso. The human version was already dead. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He just died? Wow. I didn't know that. You are telling me now for the first time. He led an amazing life. What else can you say. I am sad to hear that. 2600:100F:B1B7:D4D9:8119:A4F1:7CD7:8BB (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, died of chronic rheumatoid arthritis, was struggling for months already. A sad end to a pretty unique and impactful life. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD, but can't support blurb (neutral), as cool as this pig is she sadly doesn't rise to the level of notability of her human alter ego. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a cubic pig, but possibly a leader in Pokism? Pigging wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Better a cubic pig than a spherical cow. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or even Concrete art. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohammed Al-Sharekh
Kuwaiti business magnate, founder of Sakhr Software Company. Jmanlucas (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Article seems well-sourced. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like a noteworthy person and a noteworthy death at that! - Petjayso (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post" Secretlondon (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Although the article has many short sections, the sourcing and quality is sufficient to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan floods
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Mild Support not sure if this is the most notable but I could see it getting nominated. Ion.want.uu (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - While we don't have a specific death tally for natural disasters like this (or at least, none that I'm aware of), news like these very rarely get posted. Plus, the article could use a bit of work. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk &#124; contribs) 08:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article claims these are ongoing floods, but says: "At least 40 people were killed", not have been killed. Also, besides from making an unreferenced claim that the floods began on 29 February, the article does not mention any other dates, which means the claim that the floods are ongoing needs to be sourced. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above; article also feels rather barebones, consisting of a series of one or two-sentence statements. The   Kip  05:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Marsh (footballer)
Australian rules footballer during the 1940s and 1950s. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Multiple paragraphs in the Life and career section have zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support! I've taken care of the referencing issues. The only minor concern remaining is highlighted in my edit summary here, which I'd appreciate if it's taken care of. Otherwise, no other concerns; courtesy ping for the update! :) ~  Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 01:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tails Wx, for the new refs! --PFHLai (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dalit Bandhu N. K. Jose
Indian historian. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine AGFing the Malalayam sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dagmar Loe

 * Support Although short, the article is sufficiently well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per MtPenguinMonster. Jusdafax (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With only 257 words of prose, this wikibio seems a little stubby. Anything else write about the subject, please? --PFHLai (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit more (+ c.100 words). Oceanh (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion, Oceanh. 400+ words now, comfortably in start class. --PFHLai (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Shafiqah Hudson
Death in February but news coverage dates to March 5. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems not noteworthy enough - Petjayso (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything living with a Wikipedia article is notable enough for RD. MyriadSims (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support The previous oppose vote should be discarded. I'm currently leaning towards support but the article could use a little expansion. Jmanlucas (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With only 273 words of prose, this wikibio seems a little stubby. Anything else write about the subject, please? --PFHLai (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support This article has enough references & just barely enough details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Linda Balgord

 * Oppose Career section too brief; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 05:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good length and well-cited. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Solihin G. P.
Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The article seems well-sourced and of sufficiently good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The last living general to fought in the Indonesian National Revolution. RIP. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks well-sourced and ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems good to go Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Hedges
Jon698 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Well sourced and no tags. Jusdafax (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) State of emergency in Haiti
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on notability as this is arguably the worst the crisis has been since the President was assassinated; however, oppose on quality as the article hasn't been updated seemingly since late December. The   Kip  22:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've written a little bit about the new state of emergency on the originally nominated article - see Gang war in Haiti. If another article is used, please feel free to transfer what I've written over under WP:CWW!
 * Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality due to there being only two paragraphs about the event in the article. I'm not sure on notability, but will reassess when more details are added to the article. Support on notability Article has been significantly expanded, and this seems to be notable enough. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, highly notable security crisis with national and international implications. Marquisate (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, as this is a major escalation in the already dire situation of the conflict AG AGR280 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, although I think the prison storming should be its separate article (more than 4700 escapees, by the way). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did try to create separate article - however I removed references to it since it has less detail than the Gang war in Haiti article at this point. Ought I add it back? 2024 gang violence in Haiti Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still good to have it on hand (likely as an altblurb) if it gets expanded in time. Also you could add main from Gang war in Haiti to the new article! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb. Notable enough and article looks ready to go, if the section covering the current riots is a bit short. Moncoposig (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as this has been one of the worst events in human history Ion.want.uu (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support here- though I'll be requesting that the current article about the events is changed to fit the fact that much more than a jailbreak has happened, it's still a very notable event - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 11:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support although 2024 Haitian jailbreak should probably be the target article, rather than Gang war in Haiti. That article is just about good enough to be on the front page, and could incorporate some of the extra info listed on Gang war in Haiti. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb - per all above  Abo Yemen ✉  11:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Needs work The lead of the nominated article says nothing about the recent developments. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added some to the lead of the nominated article - let me know if I'm missing anything. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the blurb link to the specific jailbreak rather than the article on the overall conflict? It has a dedicated article at 2024 Haitian jailbreak. Tube·of·Light 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When originally posted, that dedicated article was in bad shape - however it has been significantly improved since, and I think this is a good idea now Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) France adopts abortion rights in constitution
While a larger celebration is due this Friday on Int'l Women's Rights Day, the passage completes the process today. Holding off to Friday is not unreasonable. M asem (t) 18:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality This is notable enough as France is the first ever modern country to place abortion rights in their constitution. But the Abortion in France article is nowhere near ready. Besides for massive sourcing issues, the article doesn't actually mention the enshrinement yet. I will also note that the prevalance section is outdated, only giving dates up until 2020. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trying to nominate this via mobile, I was hoping to find a better article on it. Willing to find a better target here.<span id="Masem:1709579639652:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternative could be Constitution of France. Brandmeistertalk  19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with how legislation works in France, but was this an actual bill that was being voted on, or was the vote explicitly for the change in the constitution? If it was the former, we could just make an article for that bill, which could then be the target. If the latter, as per Brandmeister, we could target the Constitution of France article. While that article does need a bit of work (and an update about the enshrinement), it is of far better quality than the Abortion in France article. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What about Constitutional amendments under the French Fifth Republic? Seems of better quality than Constitution of France, and is also more direct. There would have to be some edits to the article, however - there's currently no mention of the new abortion rights clause in the article. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added some bare-bones mention of the new amendment in Constitutional amendments under the French Fifth Republic - however they definitely need more work to be included in ITN. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources indicate that France isn't actually the first country to do so (the first was former Yugoslavia with its 1974 constitution), but rather the first modern country or something like that. Brandmeistertalk  19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that an amendment from the same decade as Roe v Wade is not part of modern history. If Yugoslavia did have a constitutional right to abortion, then "first post-Iron Curtain country" is not really a massive claim. Still support as unusual, even if not first. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, Yugoslavia was not beyond the Iron Curtain (except for a brief 2-year period from 1946 to 1948). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to AP https://apnews.com/article/france-abortion-right-constitution-parliament-vote-versailles-d6ce4fb3a6a7288033f58235b65f570e, it looks like the former Yugoslavian constitution guaranteed the right to "decide on having children", not explicitly an abortion - however the Yugoslavian constitution still was interpreted to protect abortions. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian changed the article (correction): «The headline of this article was amended on 4 March 2024 to remove an incorrect reference that France is the first country in the world to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right.» Proeksad (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe they've seen our comments here... Brandmeistertalk  18:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. The Yugoslav constitution is ambiguous enough that I think France's decision is notable. The   Kip  21:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. As Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, France is only the first currently existing country to have it, but still notable. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as per above  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 05:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...until we have an article on this actual event. Having it buried in as a minor part of another article isn't good enough. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN does not require a separate article for any event, just that there is a significant update to an existing article (which is lacking presently).<span id="Masem:1709643997660:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a blurb is proposed, but there is no specific article about this event, actually there isn't even a named paragraph in the suggested article. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article suggested is Abortion in France, which has multiple orange tags and doesn't have a specific section on this event. If we get an article on this event (or substantial content about it in another article that also doesn't have multiple orange tags), and that meets WP:ITNQUALITY, then it and only then would it be worth considering whether or not to post this. I'm confused as to how anyone can just vote support when there isn't even an article for this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The section "21st century liberalization" in Abortion in France covers this (going back to Dobbs in 2022 when the bill to change the constitution was introduced, for two paragraphs, but it definitely could be expanded). M asem (t) 13:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It has 2 short paragraphs totalling 908 characters about it (excluding the mention of Yugoslavia that isn't sourced)- that's not enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Both on quality and notability. I don't really see how a domestic constitutional amendment is notable enough for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is similar to how we've posted first countries in specific regions to support gay marriage. It's the first country to specifically call out abortion rights as protected, which is a milestone for women's rights. If it was the second or third to do so, yes, it wouldn't be so significant. M asem (t) 13:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I feel it draws on quite an arbitrary metric which is 'codified in the constitution'. Almost nothing has changed in actual French abortion law. We shouldn't automatically post "first to enact law" countries unless it has an excessive amount of notability. Even if you think this is a milestone for women's rights, I still don't see the justification for posting this. Barely any news coverage outside of domestic French politics, as well as the article only being two sentences. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is massive variation in what a constitution is around the world. In my country, Australia, abortion is fully legal everywhere, but I don't believe it's the kind of thing that could ever go in the country's constitution. It's just not what our constitution is for. I'm sure similar situations exist elsewhere. So abortion in Australia is already as legal as it can be, but that didn't appear in ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Abortion was already legal and widely available in France. Quite how that is codified (law vs constitution) is a technical detail. This is a largely symbolic step that has more to do with domestic political posturing than any real change in access to abortion. The nominated article is a mess, the update is minimal, and the 'first' being claimed here is both questionable and unimpressive. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it bettter myself PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Modest Genius. Cambalachero (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. Nothing substantive has changed and ITN is not in the business of promoting political theatre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - would we oppose blurbing a ratified amendment to the US Constitution? Almost certainly not. Although this may not actually affect things in France, it's still notable and worthy of a blurb. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean support being the first amendment to the French constitution in over 15 years: a notable gap given how often it used to be amended before then (6 times in 5 years at one point!). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because nothing actually changed. Abortion was already legal in France and has been since 1975. Distinction without a difference here.  nableezy  - 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support For fairly obvious reasons. France is the beacon of liberty for humanity once again Kasperquickly (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose what changes is that any attempts to de-constitutionalize (is that even a word) abortion will be harder than by simply amending statutes. So, something changed, but is not readily apparent, more so if you have a dick. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. Jusdafax (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Supreme Court rules Trump must appear on Colorado's ballot
IntoThinAir (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When the election happens, we'll post the winner as a blurb. There's no need for updates on who even appears on the ballot. We never post the winners of the party nomination primaries, for example. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this rather makes the case to have the 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign as ongoing. The twists and turns are piling up. BD2412  T 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not intrinsically opposed to putting major election campaigns in ongoing, but I think this proposal is premature. We should only put the US election there at the earliest when both parties have definitively chosen their candidates; likewise the UK one only when parliament is dissolved. Otherwise we'll be overflowing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose largely per Modest Genius. Supreme Court decisions from any country are rarely posted and this does not fundamentally alter any constructional law. Beyond which this is just part of the evolving story of the 2024 presidential election. I am ambivalent on whether or not to add the election to ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per "not every US election-related thing is notable", also oppose having an Ongoing item as many countries have election campaigns and having only this one featured would be pretty blatant US bias. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because, effectively, nothing changed. Trump was and remains on the ballot. I would have supported it if he was removed. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A purely administrative decision affecting one candidate in one state's poll for the presidency. We absolutely should not cover such minutiae at ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think Trump being disqualified would have been ITN-worthy, but this ruling was expected. Jessintime (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juli Lynne Charlot
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's an orange tag indicating multiple issues. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a handful of {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One {cn} tag remaining, thanks to recent edits by . --PFHLai (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, basically re-wrote the article and removed a lot of cruft. Looks good to go now! ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 18:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eleanor Collins
Canadian jazz singer, television host and civic leader. Known as "Canada's first lady of jazz". Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - article is over-cited, if anything (though I assume there's nothing bad about that?) ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to go. Moncoposig (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Mortensen
240F:7A:6253:1:2DDA:5B3F:E171:D64F (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I think the article is giving undue weight to Deflategate and his undisclosed ad tweet in relation to the rest of his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still a handful of {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. I don’t think it has any problems w/undue weight at this point. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Ott
– Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is well-sourced, untagged and of acceptable length. Jusdafax (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: U. L. Washington
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's close but the three cn tags should be fixed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support got the three CNs. The rest looks good.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good now ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment is outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a real splitting hairs discussion that is not material to the decision on quality here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was originally a Cn tag there on recently added material before the discussion was started. I'm not saying it's a showstopper or not. —Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You say that, but here you are stopping the show. By pointing out an unsettled discussion started by...YOU...after the CN was addressed. Regarding a matter of remarkably low significance.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The article is of good enough quality now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Pakistan New PM
Ainty Painty (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, OR altblurb IV The election has faced allegations of rigging, supported by numerous reputable sources [can be found on election page]. These allegations have prompted the creation of a standalone WP page dedicated to documenting the irregularities at Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election. so It's crucial that WP highlight these concerns about the election integrity. Altblurb can be re-worded though. --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary? There has been elections before with allegations of rigging but that was not featured in the alt blurb. Like USA 2020 or Russian interference in the UK 2019 election. Haris920 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Reports from both local and international media have highlighted significant allegations of rigging, to the extent that there's now a standalone WP article dedicated to documenting it. Here's the gist: PTI declined to form a government, despite coalition offers from PPP. --Saqib (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Rigging has been happening for years in Pakistan. The rigging in this election makes no major difference. Every election gets rigged and manipulated. Did Zad really win in 2008? Nawaz 2013? PTI is only complaining as this is the first time they are on the wrong side of the rigging. Haris920 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While it's true that past elections hav been marred by rigging but I would say we shouldn't dwell on history and focus on this election because each and every election has its own unique circumstances & this one is no exception. For me, the pre-poll rigging was particularly unique or rather interesting this time around. one of the largest political parties barred from contesting, and its leader jailed and despite this, the party or its candidates emerged with the most seats in the parliament yet still was not unable to form a government. Sounds 1970 Pakistani general election to me. My comment might imply a biased agenda, which is not my intention as I'm neither a voter nor a supporter of PTI. However, it's important to acknowledge the extensive and ample coverage backing up the claims of rigging in this election by independent reliable sources, despite the prevalent censorship in Pakistan. Therefore, it's equally important for us to reflect this accurately. --Saqib (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note By the way for those who don't know this ITN was proposed right after election last month> In_the_news/Candidates/February_2024. --Saqib (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb Unless elections are truly undemocratic, we don't include anything about it in blurbs, just name the successor, to prevent any politicising/any appearance of political POV. (I.e. he's in charge now, it would be wrong to use wikivoice to suggest anything at all about the appointment, not least that it might be illegitimate.) Kingsif (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a coalition government though. and original blur should reflect that--Saqib (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb as it captures the essence of the event in a clear way. The rigging is certainly sigificant, given the existing political crisis, there is no reason not to mention it. Article should be good to go. Pksois23 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment We absolutely should not include the allegations of rigging in the blurb as those are exactly what's being said, allegations, not confirmation. Its a territory that needs the context of a full article to get into, not something that is appropriate for a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposed and Support Alt4. This acknowledges the PTI aspect of the election, but does not include the "rigging" concerns, which, like with elections that we consider to not be "free and fair", this information will be in the article and we can let the readers come to this conclusion organically. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It does have the word "despite" which, in a contextless blurb, can read as Wikipedia having a view of the outcome. Kingsif (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb: As it is most neutral and concise. Rigging allegations have been part of almost all Pakistani elections in the past. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT4 Despite the rigging allegations being an important part of the news, we’ve posted plenty of non-free/fair elections without such wording, and now’s not the time to change that. PTI note is good to include though, seeing as Sharif’s party is not the largest party in parliament. The   Kip  19:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose mentioning rigging as these are only allegations for now, and that's not a wording we usually go with. Oppose the wording of alt4 (which is factually wrong, they did not win a majority) and alt5, but would support mentioning that this is a coalition government (thus why "winning a plurality" doesn't necessarily matter), ie support alt6. If that's not possible, support original blurb. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt6, oppose on quality This seems to me to be the most factually accurate of the blurbs, and we don't need to mention allegations (not confirmation) of electoral fraud. That being said, the article currently has a mostly unsourced awards section, making it not ready to go. It might be good to mention the allegations of fraud in conjunction with protests due to the allegations. So far, I don't think they are notable enough, as there is only a medium-sized section about them. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Check out Allegations_of_rigging_in_the_2024_Pakistani_general_election --Saqib (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion. However, I think we should only mention the protests if it is clear that they have had significant impacts (which the article currently doesn't indicate), and ideally if they get their own article. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * oppose alts III–V as grammatically incorrect (‘winning majority seats’, ‘although…winning’); further oppose the inclusion of any definitive claim that the PTI won a majority, including alt IV as presently unsourced (although I personally think the claim is plausible); and support some mention of vote-rigging allegations and/or the PTI’s winning a plurality of seats. Docentation (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the blurb needs correction as "PML-N President Shehbaz Sharif, who is the joint candidate of the newly-formed eight-party alliance" — Dawn | Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mind breaking this down for me. --Saqib (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Stephen 10:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant you removed the mention of coalition. --Saqib (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * shouldn't it be 're-appointed', since he previously held the position? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark F. Giuliano

 * Posted Stephen 02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Beard
240F:7A:6253:1:151D:C1A1:E591:E51F (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This wikibio has 600+ words of prose, but the first footnote is at the end of the final sentence on the subject's death????? Discography after the prose is also unsourced.  Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose correctly orange tagged as needing lots more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough references now. Good job . Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Thriley (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Ecclestone
Canadian professional ice hockey left winger and coach. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be of sufficient quality. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janice Burgess
Nickelodeon executive notable for creating The Backyardigans, death announced on March 5th. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  02:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jaclyn Jose
Cannes Best Actress awardee in 2016 for Ma' Rosa, but better known in the Philippines for her roles in the TV series Mula sa Puso (1997–1999) and Mundo Mo'y Akin (2013). Died on 2 March, but her death was only reported on 3 March. Article looks to have been significantly improved compared to its state a few days ago, although some {cn} tags remain and some sections need to have additional citations. Vida0007 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's an orange tag, a CN tag and the filmography and awards section need citations. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So many short paragraphs with three sentences of less, but zero footnotes. So many boxes after the prose in need of sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Brit Awards 2024
Heatrave (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article doesn't have enough prose on the ceremony itself, and anyways, I'm not sure if these awards are at the standard of the Grammys (currently the only music awards show listed at WP:ITNR). The   Kip  22:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Kip a few days ago, Oppenheimer was featured in ITN as it won the British Academy Awards so i don't think the Grammy standards should apply here. If that's the case, then only news EGOT will apply. Heatrave (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I believe the 2024 Brit Awards concluded two days ago [Https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68458923 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68458923] (BBC article updated two days ago), and the Wikipedia article itself states the awards were 2 March 2024 Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the correct date. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I believe this has been posted before, but this article is in no shape to appear on the main page, as apart from the multiple lack of citations, there is actually no prose about the ceremony itself, which is probably best as it was pretty much universally panned for being generally terrible. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above, the article has no prose about the event, and has various sourcing issues. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Søren Pape Poulsen
Danish politician. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of decent quality, but it would be ideal to fix the one cn the article does have. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Weird way for such a notable politician to go. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost another Hasan Bitmez deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Sure, some might doubt he succeeded the elusive Johannes Stensgaard in '09, but I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Happy to report that, while I should've been working, I dug through the Wayback Machine and found a page from the Danish government listing past mayors of Viborg. The page has since been broken by a redesign, but lo and behold, Mr. Stensgaard is listed just before Mr. Pape Poulsen. I've added the reference. Pinging User:InedibleHulk, User:Gödel2200. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's some fine confirmation, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugene Wijeysingha
– robertsky (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Support The article is sufficiently well-sourced, but it is short. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - short, but sourced and probably good enough Pksois23 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Okafor
Popular Nollywood actor. There are still a couple of passages marked as needing citations. gobonobo + c 22:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - poorly written and poorly cited article Pksois23 (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like CN tags are addressed and is now very-well sourced Jmanlucas (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Sinking of the Rubymar
I'm not the best at making blurbs so i wouldn't mind alt blurbs  Abo Yemen ✉  15:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is covered by the Red Sea crisis item in ongoing. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. The   Kip  15:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The military bit is covered by ongoing as mentioned by Goedel2200 and The Kip, true, however, I feel this is newsworthy as an environmental situation. I boldly therefore propose the altblurb for everyone's consideration. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides from the fact that the article is a stub, this environmental disaster is actually also covered by ongoing (it is listed in the same paragraph in the Red Sea crisis article where the sinking of the ship is listed). I am also concerned that the altblurb misrepresents where the word "environmental disaster" is used by RS's. As far as I can tell, the only RS's listed that use "environmental disaster" in the article for the environmental impact of the Red Sea crisis were from before the sinking (actually, the sinking isn't even mentioned in the environmental impact article). Gödel2200 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Covered by ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is nommed for DYK, as an alternate if the ITN nom is covered by ongoing. Fritzmann (message me) 15:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I think there is an argument for ITN, I do think that the subject would make for an interesting DYK blurb that is also not clickbait or shock value, and that DYK could probably do with more of those. So, if the two parts of MP want to work together, I might suggest focus on the DYK. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing, Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose first blurb by ongoing, oppose altblurb on quality of the article linked, would support if it was made an article about that specific sinking's environmental effects rather than the weird one-section general topic article it currently is (which mentions the previous attack on the ship but not the current sinking). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non-notable ship (likely due to its small size), and event should be covered by ongoing. Because of the non-notability of the ship, I question the need for the article rather than a summary of the sinking in an appropriate location within the ongoing article, but that's not an issue to resolve here. --M asem (t) 19:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom, but covered by ongoing. I'd support this in DYK per Kingsif. Moncoposig (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is covered by “Ongoing”. However, it could be a good article for “DYK”. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is covered by Ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iris Apfel
Well sourced. 240F:7A:6253:1:B811:95D6:3052:1B00 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 2 CN tags but otherwise well-cited. JM (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Tags now resolved. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. JM (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article is surprisingly well sourced. Artistic woman with an exceptional long career. Cart (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support no issues, solid sourcing, article is long enough. Mooonswimmer 23:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erling Folkvord
Norwegian politician. Article is a GA. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is a fully-cited GA, but there’s almost nothing on what he did between the 2009 elections and his death (a period of 15ish years). The   Kip  01:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is he active after 2009? Retired and nothing to write about? --PFHLai (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support suitable article for RD. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article has enough details & references. WRT what he did after 2009, I found a reference that said that he left the Oslo City Council in 2011. Also, the “Authorship” section has info about multiple books written after 2009. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficiently good quality to post --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Dhaka building fire
Ainty Painty (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article is poorly-developed at the moment. Weak support on notability, though I could be convinced the other way. The   Kip  04:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality too short, empty section. JM (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support* Needs some work but this is something that definitely should have made the "In the News." X (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article does not indicate this event will have a lasting impact. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality too short and lacks detail. Although support on notability once that is fixed. Pksois23 (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, not a lot of detail about the fire and its a short article. Support on notability once issues are resolved. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality– the article isn't ready at all at this moment, atleast for news blurb. Support on notability because this kind of incidents (also very less severe if it happens in the US) have been included in the past. Zeeshan Y Tariq 20:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Article needs more work. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Without any way to further expand this article (comparable to how lengthy the Grenfell Tower fire due to its investigation), this is a run-of-the-mill unfortunate disaster that is more appropriate to a list article rather than standalone. --M asem (t) 19:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment/Support although the article is short and somewhat lacks detail I think it is well sourced and could probably barely pass WP:ITNQUALITY. I know this is kind of an insignificant issue but ITN has been sort of quiet these days. Pksois23 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like the article’s quality is good enough now & this is notable enough to blurb. Would you support posting it now? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Blaylockjam10 Support on my part. I think the article is okay now. Although there's room for way more improvement, but IMO the current state is enough to warrant a blurb. X (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mid support: It still has a lot of space for improvement but probably enough to be included in the ITN. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident
Covered largely in international media. Lukt64 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for largely the same reasons I said below: covered by ongoing and non-NPOV blurb. Once again, not a good sign for NPOV when the nominator uses the heading "massacre" while nominating an article using "incident" (since changed as of 20:19) . Also, nominated on the wrong day. JM (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposed altblurb and added more sources. Still oppose as ongoing. JM (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My altblurb was removed as "euphemistic" despite virtually matching the article's current opening sentence (112 Palestinian civilians were killed and at least 760 were injured; the circumstances are disputed) so I suppose that alternative is out of the question then. JM (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose although this is certainly notable on its own, this is covered by ongoing, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I do concur with the argument that this is covered by ongoing, it would be good to have some prose about this event added to the Israel-Hamas war page. As far as I can tell, there is only a see also mention to the article in the Gaza famine section. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While "Russian invasion of Ukraine" has its timeline article on the main page, why doesn't the same occur with "Israel–Hamas war"? There is a timeline article: Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodRabelo7 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was specifically added to ongoing because the main article for the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not getting daily updates, while the timeline was. The Israel-Hamas war articles is getting daily updates, so I think we are fine leaving it as it is. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing. The   Kip  00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by Ongoing, but support adding it to the Israel-Hamas war page as per Gödel. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but it should be noted that a stampede also occurred While this is covered by “Ongoing” & should be added to the Israel-Hamas war article, this is significant enough to be blurbable. However, the stampede should also be mentioned. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support with stampede mentioned - Per @Blaylockjam10 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral – I think this can be suitably covered in Israel-Hamas war, though the article looks really good and its definitely of appropriate significance as a single event. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Blaylockjam10. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)