Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2022

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

(Posted) RD: Walter Abish

 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it otherwise issue free?  This article is READY for RD, and thus I am in Support of the nom. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Parks (cricketer, born 1931)

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It is long enough to qualify (500+ words), has footnotes where they are expected, and there are no concerns with formatting. Apart from a long quote, Earwig found no other problems. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Victor von Halem

 * We have now details in English, updated further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced. 600 words. Fine. Grimes2 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: KK (singer)

 * Oppose Article needs ref work and the lead could be beefed up to mention more about his career (such as why is he regarded the "most versatile singers of his generation") because it only mentions the languages his songs were in. such as the career section and his album/awards section contain no sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Will try to update in some time. As a fan, very sad due to his untimely passing. 😭 Venkat TL (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Seems to be an important figure to Indians. Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about if the person is important, the main criteria is if the article is in good state (good sources, good info, etc.) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment will try and assist folks on adding more sources to the article. Other than that, it has my Support. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Early life: "graduated from Kirori Mal College" in what?; two uncited statements: "This song featured members of the Indian Cricket Team.", "KK also has a daughter named Tamara Kunnath." Career: a lot of cn tags along with an additional refs banner. Awards and honors: completely uncited.
 * Also, related article List of songs recorded by KK contains three wholly uncited sections (and subsections): Film Songs in other languages, Albums, TV Title Songs, TV Performances, Other Non-Film Songs; and uncited 2020, 2022, 2023 sub-sections. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The missing references have been added. Needs review. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready I think. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All the instances of songs/singles are in italics, the format is double quotes, no italics (only films/albums should be in italics). The statements highlighted below need to be cited, also looks like some articles were AfD'd therein UTV (I guess for UTV Software Communications) and Star Parivaar Awards (Star Plus (TV Channel)) and should be linked aptly. Gotitbro (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are still a number of uncited sentences. Some appear trivial ("He got his first break in Mumbai with UTV to sing jingles.", "He has also sung the theme song for Star Parivaar Awards 2010 with Shreya Ghoshal.") and could probably be removed. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite, @Gotitbro, I have implemented these improvement suggestions. I thought Italics were needed for the song titles, thanks for correcting me. I havve removed italics. Venkat TL (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. A similar cleaning up of List of songs recorded by KK which appears integral to the main article would also be appreciative. Gotitbro (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gotitbro thank you. List of songs recorded by KK is already in the correct quote/italic format as you said. It has 480 refs. Venkat TL (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was talking about the wholly uncited sections (see above) regardless of the citations currently present. Gotitbro (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look at it, but filmography is a separate article than KK and one section in it should not hold this RD nomination from getting posted. Venkat TL (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready again. This nom is 3 day old and fast getting stale. Venkat TL (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a 7 day window to post RDs.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, it does appear to be fully cited now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How come the Career section does not mention anything after 2015? He was still active, according to List of songs recorded by KK. --PFHLai (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai This HT article provides answer to your question. His last album came out in 2008, yes he was active after 2015 too but he was doing playback songs for films and concerts. I guess there were no new major popular songs from him since then. His Bio only lists popular songs, while the other songs are listed in discography. I am checking for popular songs in this period. will add if I find. Venkat TL (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revising the Career section to fill the gap in coverage. The funeral has been held -- if you like, please update and elaborate on this as you see fit (I've updated the tense and changed the date). A separate issue: Things mentioned in the intro are usually just highlighted or summarized there and are then elaborated upon in the main body of the article. However, the Filmfare Awards nominations currently only appear in the intro (and unref'd!) but not mentioned elsewhere in the prose. The table following the prose indicated that he was not only nominated, but won once! Please fix. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed @PFHLai, funeral section added. Award win added. Refs for the award/nominations are in the table, not in the lead per WP:REFLEAD. After lot of searching I dont find popular songs he sang after 2015, notably he did not get award nominations too for the period. I have added his interviews he gave in the period to fill the void. Marked it as ready as no major issues holding the nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be in the prose, not in the table afterwards. But it's alright. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai thank you. I agree. I have added it now. Venkat TL (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding. -- PFHLai (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Miangul Adnan Aurangzeb

 * Oppose Article needs a lot of work such as expansion and source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Beyond the person being an MNA, there doesn't seem to be anything to warrant an RD mention. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the ITN template above notes, for RDs only article quality needs to be sufficient, notability is not a factor. But the article is barely above a stub here. Gotitbro (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken it upon myself to fix the sourcing issues, so those should be good. Article might fall short of length requirements, though. Pinging, , and . Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This stub currently has only 206 words of readable prose. Anything else to write about? --PFHLai (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 monkeypox outbreak
Nominator's comment: Check the chart from OurWorldInData (local version linked to on the right): Disclaimer - I am an involved editor in the article.

Notes: I had read some of the comments on the previous nomination. For all the epidemiological points, I'd like to point out that, as of now, there is too much unclear about the outbreak to be able to say whether this will go "pandemic" or not (even if due to the nature of transmission, a pandemic would be quite different to that of COVID-19 in any case). Also, I'd like to point out that - rather than being "hypersensitive" to the subject, my impression is that opposite - I think this would have been making more headlines before the pandemic (70 new cases of a disease - in one day in the UK - that was previously restricted to West Africa?).

So anyway, even if its not in the news that heavily anymore, I think this is warranted to presentation here on Wikipedia. (Also - I think it would be a shame not to showcase an article that many editors have put good work into - and which might be substantially out of date within a couple weeks though). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The WHO are not ruling out that this might become a pandemic. Me, I'm planning a trip to Colorado but see that it has already reached the Rockies! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "not ruling out that this might...: is the sloppiest reason to post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb, Support Ongoing The only news about 500 cases I'm seeing is about Nigeria's 500 cases since 2017 and Sankuru's 500 cases since January. In a non-African context, it's just apparently some number. But the broader outbreak keeps chugging along in general, with however many new cases (article says 568). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing it's an ongoing event with ongoing news coverage. However, there is no single event so far that meets the threshold for an ITN blurb. And once again, there is no rule that something has to be a blurb before being added to ongoing, contrary to people that will inevitably argue this. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It is fair game that this potentially can be a pandemic or the like, but we're still talking 500 cases out of 7 billion people, compared to COVID that by the time we posted was in the high thousands. Feels too premature at this point for ongoing. --M asem (t) 12:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't go the rest of your life comparing everything to COVID. Apples and oranges. How long did the Russian invasion take? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly! From creation, 19 days, 18 hours and 42 minutes of continual news and article updates. God knows how many seconds. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, this article is now precisely 13 days, 14 hours and 50 minutes old. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Without checking for sure, we didn't add Covid as ongoing until about 3 to 4 months after its first major news of spread. I am pretty confident our first articles on Covic were created that December before the pandemic declaration. M asem (t) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, everything about that storyline is weird. The bards in charge had to whip up an entirely new and never-before-seen word just to describe its twists and turns. The "fight against monkeypox" is also not combat in the traditional sense, but as this enemy is selectively targeting gay men through physical contact and turning them red, it's closer in spirit to Russian barbarism than some ethereal indiscriminate upper respiratory threat. The simplest choice, of course, is to treat it on its own merits. Its incremental updates are novel, unique and original, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing - A COVID-19 comes along only once in a lifetime. All other pandemics in this generation will pale in comparison to it. But this is still newsworthy despite its limited impact thus far.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing. The blurb would happen if a pandemic is declared. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing ... oppose blurb, since the situation doesn't appear to have changed markedly since the blurb nom. last week failed to fly, and because as Walt notes impact has been limited. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb first - unusual outbreak. I would hold off on ongoing until the blurb sinks down though, within the week or so in which that happens we should know for sure whether it's Ongoing-worthy or not. Either way, hopefully it wouldn't be. Juxlos (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or ongoing Either or should be fine, but this should 100% be on the main page ITN section ASAP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Still 0 deaths; it has also largely rolled off of the front page at most news organizations. The last blurb was nominated during peak media hysteria about a new potential public health crisis 47.176.81.182 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless WHO declares this a pandemic. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Honestly, not yet a pandemic, and with HIV/AIDS not posted, even that bar alone is not an auto-inclusion in my mind. 500 cases of a disease - and none of which yet fatal - in a span of a few weeks is notable, but not quite seismic in impact, nor unique. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification question - is this opposition to a "blurb" or inclusion as "ongoing" ? (Just going by the current "ongoing" events, I could understand your seismic comment - for the blurb, I'm not sure how eg the winner of a Sports event would qualify as "seismic") Sean Heron (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, bar SARS and COVID, and to an extent the 2003 US monkeypox outbreak (which was zoonotic though) - this outbreak is in fact unique, as far as I can tell (happy to be pointed to other examples though!) Sean Heron (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure where in the ITN guidelines it says that a public health issue has to be declared a pandemic before it reaches sufficient newsworthiness. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- Sca (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Last major outbreak was in 2003, looks significant. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it's declared a pandemic. This disease is also endemic to some parts of Africa already, so to suddenly highlight it just because it's moved to the "western" world is not a good look IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * its not that it's moved to the western world, its that the disease has moved to countries where it shouldn't be found in. 4iamking (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but Ongoing its getting alot of news coverage, and its not going away anytime soon. There is no requirement for it to be anther pandemic to be featured in ITN, it just has to take up a lot of oxygen in the news.4iamking (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Why isn't this nom. using the standard template? – Sca (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose ZERO deaths. I don't think natural disasters with zilch fatalities get posted. At least bother to nominate this once the first fatality is confirmed. I personally have a hard time finding differences between this and a panic-obsessed media complex trying to generate clicks.  It's like the media complex has become habituated about posting every incremental update about possible but unconfirmed health condition that might or might not have an economic impact.  81.181.130.106 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Blaming 'the media' is always a good ploy. -- Sca (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. A new mutated pox virus that is going to become endemic is bad news given that pox viruses tend to evolve to become deadlier over time. Count Iblis (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post on speculations. M asem (t) 15:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or on specula, either. -- Sca (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose let's not put the cart before the horse. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Made the news here for a couple of days a week or so ago, then disappeared. Obviously not a major issue for the world. Maybe if it escalates.... HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - It is in the news, article looks good, blurb first and discuss "Ongoing" status depending on how events continue to unfold. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - Ongoing event with continuous coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 06:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There has not even been 1,000 confirmed cases yet and no reported deaths. This can perhaps be renominated in a few weeks if the reported number of cases explodes. Thriley (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. It doesn't need to be an epidemic/pandemic to be important enough to post. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or ongoing. It's in the news, article quality is good enough. There are no rules about it having to be declared a pandemic, or having to kill a certain number of people, or having to be in the news in the place where editors live... all of these are oppose rationales that should be discounted. Levivich 22:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, in regards to "having be declared a pandemic", we do not want to post the same story multiple times to ITN so we want to be at a point where we move out of speculation into when it is a proven event (eg high-profile criminal convictions, business merger announcements). There's a potential for this to be a pandemic, so ideally we don't want to post the story before it reached that turning point. M asem (t) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * but then, with the absence of the pandemic hook, wouldn't the logical thing be to add this to ongoing (given that it is receiving a lot of attention in the news and has been for a few weeks now), and when it actually gets declared a pandemic if that ever happens, then we would blurb it? 4iamking (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, we shouldn't not post an ITN blurb about an outbreak because we think it will become a pandemic later. Also there really is no problem with posting a story twice, it's not like we don't have room or we have too many blurbs rolling off too soon; in fact the problem is the opposite, ITN blurbs are perpetually stale... mostly because good blurb candidates are voted down by a myriad of new and inventive reasons like "might become a pandemic later". Also also, posting it to ongoing avoids this issue entirely. Levivich 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. There's no major recent development that would warrant a blurb, but this has been in the news enough at a high enough sustained frequency, with regular gradual developments, that ongoing makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Marking as "attention needed", since this is bound to get archived in a day and discussion has died down, Currently 15 support some form of posting (either in form of blurb or ongoing with a push towards adding this to ongoing), 6 opposed, but imo a decision needs to be made. 4iamking (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Unlike COVID this is a disease that has been around for a long time and we know how to deal with, so it's not as significant an outbreak. But it has now topped 1000 cases in 29 countries, and the CDC has raised its alert level. Not a story that's going away.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's always been around, and also isn't going away, is exactly why it doesn't belong in Ongoing or anywhere else. It's just spread to rich countries now, so suddenly it "matters" to the main stream media. As before, if and when WHO declare a pandemic, that's significant. But not before that, we're not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It has been "In The News", no doubt, but the media has overwhelmed due to panic. And I think it has already passed unnoticed. If the WHO declares it pandemic or if several states apply restrictive measures (beyond confinement for days of those infected or close contacts in countries like Malta or Belgium), perhaps it would be time to include it in Ongoing or as a blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Questions (by nominator):
I'm not understanding some things here (and have doubts I would understand better by reading the policies on ITN in more detail). So: Sorry if there are answers to these questions somewhere already, or if there is a better forum to pose the questions - I'm happy to be pointed there! Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will an administrator be looking over the nomination and bringing it to a conclusion, or not? I'm asking, because the first nomination was "simply" auto-archived from what I can tell.
 * What criteria are used to decide on inclusion for ITN - is it whether the Wikipedia article has been updated (and of high enough quality)? Or whether the subject matter / article is being reported on in big (international) media outlets? Or if the news item some passes some kind of notability criteria? What guides notability? (For the Outbreak, notability has been dismissed with arguments ranging from "no deaths yet" to "when it is declared a pandemic")
 * -> My feeling right now (and looking at other nominations, eg for the Texas elemenary school shooting), is its some kind of amalgation of all of those, (but then in certain cases, the question of how many people take one view or another is not deemed relevant?)
 * In general - people weighing in, on both sides for the Monkeypox outbreak, seem mostly to be strongly swayed by their personal opinion. Is that the general idea of how ITN nominations are to be resoved? Put differently, my impression is the process is pretty badly broken, or at least could be considerably improved (to make for more structured discussions, along more objective and deliminated criteria).
 * Your observation about the process is a valid one. See this discussion. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The main concern is if this has passed a threshold that is recognized as a key point. Eg: We don't post on arrests or the like until the person is convicted in a court of law, etc. When the best time to report a potential epidemic/pandemic is unclear but we do know there are points like when WHO officially names it as such. Hence the hesitation for posting this now when we don't have that, and thus harming if we have to post again when the WHO make their assessment. --M asem (t) 00:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sean shouldn't stress about ITN's manifest flaws because the monkeypox topics are actually doing fine. Here's how they compare in recent readership with the current bold entries in the ITN blurbs:


 * It's clear from this that ITN is driving few readers to the topics in question. Our readers mostly decide for themselves what's important and go straight there.  That includes monkeypox and so Sean's efforts have not been in vain.  Well done.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Andrew's advocating for ITN to be replaced by WP:TOP25 again. This is never-ending.  And dull as dishwater until Andrew does something pro-active about it.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But he also doesn't think any sports articles should make the FP, regardless of popularity or notability. Hilarious. The Kip (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly comments, and the pointers :) . Sean Heron (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Costen Shockley

 * With 1648 words of readable prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. No obvious formatting issues. And the similarities found by Earwig are mostly quotes. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Boris Pahor

 * Oppose Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. A lot of work to do. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many orange tags. Too many footnote-free paragraphs. No improvements in the past couple of days. --PFHLai (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Friedrich Christian Delius

 * The wikibio is long enough to qualify (485 words of readable prose), has footnotes at expected spots, with no obvious formatting issues, and Earwig found nothing wrong. It is READY for RD. BTW, is it worth mentioning his 2004 Fontane Prize of the City of Neuruppin? (Not a requirement for posting.) --PFHLai (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it, - it's among the 16 literary prizes the German Wikipedia has. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding. --PFHLai (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sean Thackrey

 * There are a few sentences tagged for missing citations. --PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done – citation needed tags addressed and unsourced statement removed. I removed one CN tag (first para. of "Early life") because it is an uncontroversial statement re. his university prof that was already verified by ref 7 at the end of the paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (987 words of readable prose), has footnotes where they are expected, with no concerns with formatting. And Earwig has found no problems. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramses Ohee

 * This wikibio is long enough to qualify (749 words of readable prose). Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Formatting looks fine. Earwig found absolutely no problems. So, this is READY for RD to me. I just have one minor question: Is the subject really a pharmacist (essentially a chemist with post-graduate training and clinical responsibilities) or an administrator in pharmacy? --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the late, I think he's a pharmacist despite the lack of higher education. Earlier in his life he worked as a regular employee (the clerk is just a rank, doesn't really mean he's a clerk) in the pharmacy. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for the explanation. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeff Gladney

 * Support, I was just planning on nominating this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The Kip (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sad death, article looks good, is well cited, and generally issue free. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He was released on August 3, 2021 after his indictment for domestic violence. What indictment for domestic violence? This sentence is the only mention of it. Article is incomplete without more detail there. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The info on that was removed by an IP here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking for needed attention.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 20:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 IIHF World Championship

 * Oppose on quality there is no summary text in the article, either for explaining how this complicated tournament works, or any match summaries. These are standard issues with sports articles, and is why most of them don't get posted (see for example all the other ITNR sports things below that haven't been accepted). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I might be able to work on it tomorrow, can’t guarantee it however. The Kip (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Hawkins

 * Comment A legendary pioneer, sure, but also continued rockin' into the 21st century. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, prose is pretty much fully sourced now, just need to get the band lineups and discog/singles referenced and this will be nearly ready. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because no one else seemed to say they were. AdoTang (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsourced discography and singles still to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Discography (all but one) and singles now sourced to his official website. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ronnie Hawkins needs sources. Was the graph drawn based on the tabulated names and years above it? How come the graph's timeline is longer than that in the table? --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's meant to show the transition of The Hawks into The Band, but I don't see the point of including the portions after Hawkins left. I'm sure there's a biography out there that could source all this, but I have no qualm moving it to the talk page until sources can be found for it. - Floydian τ ¢ 11:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the removal. It seems like a good idea, but not yet ready for use with the sourcing thus far. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (2684 words of readable prose), has footnotes at expected spots, with no obvious formatting problems. Apart from a few quotes, Earwig has found no issues. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support looks great now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Rodger

 * Support Article looks in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Came here to suggest the article for RD but Kiwichris has beaten me to it.  Schwede 66  02:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Indy 500

 * Oppose right now - article isn't updated yet - seems to have no information on the actual race. Still has a lot of uncited text in other parts as well.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/question wouldn't a picture of the winner (we have one) be better than a picture of an oval? Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As it comprises multiple ovals, yes, it certainly would. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, he's here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minimal international coverage; even in international media where it is mentioned it is displayed less prominently than other recent races that we are not considering posting, such as the 2022 Monaco Grand Prix. It is listed on ITNR, but we are permitted to make exceptions, and given the clear lack of significance of this race we should do so. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The history of the race alone for both makes them suitable for posting, I would argue. I also would argue that, if we excluded this, other ITNR items such as the Kentucky Derby should be excluded as well. Personally, I believe this, the Monaco GP, and the Kentucky Derby are all suitable. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Indy 500 is also the "flagship event" of that racing season, like a final is in some other sports. That's not the case with the Monaco GP (probably because the racing there is awful). Either way, this is ITNR, so only article quality should be considered. Any other discussion should be done at WT:ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks it's pretty simple. If you don't want this on ITN/R head over to WT:ITN and propose a removal so I can oppose it. Your oppose in this nom is invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Very bizarre that Monaco Grand Prix is not ITNR listed but this is given they both form part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport. I know what race attracts more international coverage and it isn't this one. AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is a secret WP:CABAL of US only motorsport enthusiasts who conspire to keep the whatever you linked to off the main page. When you re-enter the earths atmosphere and the radio blackout has ended I'll transmit instructions to you on how you can nominate your favorite events at ITN, then if successful nominate for inclusion at ITN/R. I'm not sure from which planet or other celestial body you're originating from, just call me when you make it to Earth. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive, collaborative, insightful comments as usual. A real asset to the project, you are. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality there doesn't seem to be a summary of the actual Sunday race itself (just a results table). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Any consensus established on ITN/R supersedes any attempt to block a posting on such grounds, and in order to remove an item's ITN/R status, consensus needs to be established on WT:ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNR is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per In_the_news " Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page" --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is neither a policy nor a guideline. The guideline is WP:ITNR, and it says occasional exceptions may apply. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What has more weight - a boilerplate template that is applied to every "guideline", or the wording of WP:ITNR itself which provides for NO exceptions? WaltCip- (talk)  11:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". People pretending otherwise sound at best like lawyers (not in a positive sense); and more likely just silly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – there's a solid race summary now in place, with refs throughout, and no maint tags present. Article is of sufficient quality to post now, imo. And I don't find the arguments for invoking WP:IAR over WP:ITNR compelling, personally. There are far more appropriate avenues for disputing the presence of something on ITNR than in the nominations of ITNR items; forcing nominators and editors to repeatedly jump through the same hoops on every other nomination was exactly why ITNR was drawn up in the first place. I see no reason for setting aside the well-established consensus developed by editors and codified in that guideline. Cheers! Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * More citations are needed, and I see several places in the body where mph is given without a template converting to km/h. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for tagging those -- they should all be dealt with now. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Don't see any quality issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks to go. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to have been updated. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Left out Swede tidbit. We didn't post regarding 1st Japanese winner for 2021 Masters Tournament, so I'd expect an explicit consensus to add that for a 2nd here.—Bagumba (talk)
 * Oppose second tidbit The "important thing" is he's the first person in the world to drive around a famous oval 200 times this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Tara Air Flight 197

 * , This article isn't at ITN/R (I'm not really sure how it could be). You should remove that.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed it. Debjyoti Gorai 18:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - so far the plane has been missing for around 12 hours (as far as I can tell). Seems quite disingenuous to say "with deaths".  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reuters says search for plane suspended due to darkness. – Sca (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until confirmation of its fate. --M asem (t) 18:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now Support with both confirmation of the wreckage and the updated article. Cause is not likely to be known for days so expansion related to the search efforts is fine. --M asem (t) 13:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The disappearance is confirmed. The problem is that there isn't enough to fill up the wikiarticle yet. There will be more to write about after the crash site is found. --PFHLai (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The disappearance of course happened. What could be (hopefully) the case is the passengers all surviving but simply unable to communicate their status. That's what we should wait on the fate. --M asem (t) 22:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The plane has been found in crashed state. "Fourteen bodies have been recovered so far, search continues for the remaining. The weather is very bad but we were able to take a team to the crash site. No other flight has been possible," spokesman Deo Chandra Lal Karn told AFP a day after the crash. Please check here. Debjyoti Gorai 05:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debjyoti Gorai (talk • contribs)
 * Wait Article just passes for ITN but should be posted when more details come out. Gotitbro (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it was a small plane, on a domestic route, no notable people were on board & there's no indication of it being deliberate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Crash confirmed. Grimes2 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose By plane crash standards, it seems a bit below MINIMUMDEATHS. Without (as Jim says) a notable person or apparent criminal onboard, I don't see this lasting the week as news. Plus, the article seemed a tad mistitled, as most RS consider this a Tara Air flight, like Tara Air Flight 193 (or the equally deadly and mistitled 2010 Tara Air Twin Otter crash). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If this template is correct, this is the second deadliest plane crash this year, and it seems like there aren’t a lot of accidents/incidents that are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Also, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS doesn’t exist, so it has no weight to refer to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Bodies being recovered.  – Sca (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn't even a page, yet alone an actual, established policy like some people try to use it as. It's the second deadliest plane crash of the year (so far), and significant news coverage. Article quality is much better than some almost-stub about disasters that often get posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated Reuters report says 21 bodies (all but one) retrieved. -- Sca (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Although we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, I do have a page that I use to reference what type of accident and death tolls are most likely to be posted to ITN. For aviation incidents, Brandmeister stated that accidents with double digit death tolls are almost always notable enough.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Death toll moderately significant, but what makes this crash noteworthy is the altitude at which it occurred, ± 14,000 ft. (4,200m) and the drama of the search/retrieval effort at that height. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as it is confirmed crash and 21 bodies has been found. Fade258 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose utterly insignificant crash of a 43 year old long out of production aircraft operated by a tiny regional airline. The only thing adding any "significance" to this rubbish disaster stub of a story is the body count -- among which there was no one of particular note. Of course we'll post this. We shouldn't, but we will. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not particularly significant as per Jim, a domestic flight of a small airline with a comparatively low passenger total and an accidental nature. Could see an argument, but it doesn't seem truly notable enough. Article is a bit short as well. The Kip (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem a particularly noteworthy crash. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. We discussed this some time back, I forget when. A complete hull-loss as well as loss of all lives (in the double-digits) is a significant event. Was on NPR and CBC earlier today. RIP and condolences. Ktin (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to be a major news story in Nepal and India at the very least; article looks in decent enough shape. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment All 22 bodies have been recovered. The black box has also been recovered. Please see BBC news article here. I think it's time to list/post the article now. Debjyoti Gorai 10:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pre posting, post ready Support Article looks ready to go. RIP to the 22 people who died. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Following up to see if we have an admin who can consider posting this one? If not ready, please remove the 'ready' tag. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull This is nowhere near significant enough to be posted, per all the previous. Crash into terrain, in poor weather, in mountainous area, low-double-digits casualties, in a country and with an airline which both have a not-particularly stellar safety record, with a similar accident that happened five years ago (This was Tara Air's second deadly accident on this route, after Flight 193 in 2016.)? Tragic, yes, but unlikely to be of much long-term significance, or significant enough to be posted on the main page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull. I'm sorry, I don't think there was any consensus to post this. I agree with RandomCanadian here. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Indian Premier League Final

 * Oppose on quality too short, not enough match summary text, and lots of citations needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose - almost entirely unsourced. Bit odd to nominate significantly before it's finished.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this too. The match isn't over, so nonsense to nominate it now, when there is literally no blurb available. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Do we really need to have a blurb for every single Indian event --TheDutchViewer (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's at WP:ITN/R, so it's not a case of it not being a suitable target  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, nobody nominated seven dead soldiers in a river plunge, a policeman and his daughter attacked by insurgents or the country's first COVID variant case (and the Indy 500 is only loosely named after India). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, its 18% of the world population so a bit more important than irrelevant places like the Netherlands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.111.5 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment C'mon, we're really going to nom this before it's even over? SMH. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a blurb, but the target has barely any prose. Gotitbro (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too little prose and far too many CN tags. The Kip (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Prose added for the finals. All of the tags have now been fixed. Meets base-requirements for homepage / ITN. Please have a look and let me know if anything else is required. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me per the last one that was posted (2021 Indian Premier League Final), Support. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - looks OK now, and marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Quality now sufficient. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do we have an admin available who can consider posting this one? Seems ready. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. I did support above, but there seems clear consensus that it's ready and it's ITN/R too, so doesn't seem controversial. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Madjoari massacre

 * Support but needs to be expanded. Added an altblurb,. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is short, but good enough for a start. Juxlos (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support for ALT1. ALT0 seems to be a bad copy/paste of the other ITN nomination today, as it has the wrong location listed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too stubby, article barely expands beyond the single-line blurbs here. Gotitbro (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing The article says that "Civilians and soldiers in northern and eastern Burkina Faso are regularly attacked" and that this is the third big attack this month. This seems to be like US shootings – a regular occurence.  See the List of ongoing armed conflicts (right) and note how many generate over 10,000 deaths annually. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: (I'm the one who made the Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso article) This is certainly a high death toll, and the article is written well. The issue is with the notability- such actions happen regularly in the country. Madjaori is probably the first major massacre in the country in 2022, but what makes it so special? It's unlikely to result in significant changes or reactions. Such events are just normal occurences in many countries. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be my concern - the Burkina Faso area has been undergoing such conflicts for years that highlighting any specific conflict may be a problem. I dunno if this also makes it viable for ongoing. --M asem (t) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stubby. Of 290 words of text, 80 are devoted to background. Toll of at least 50 seems corroborated by RS coverage. (France24/AFP cite is in French. English version may be found here.) Note that event occurred four days ago. – Sca (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This should be posted now as this individual conflict seems to be notable. I don’t see any reason to consider the Jihadist insurgency for ongoing when that article doesn’t get regular updates because the last major incident before this massacre was more than three months ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, As the article says it was condemned by UNSG, so it happened and is notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub. What little original content exists could be a single paragraph in Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso --LaserLegs (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article is too stubby, but the event itself seems notable enough. The Kip (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently 7 support vs. 3 oppose. Yet no sign of it being added to the front page. If 50 people were massacred in a western country in a similar manner... and saying it's a regular occurrence makes the case for the jihadist insurgency in west africa to be added to Ongoing. Sheila1988 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still too short for posting as a main page target. I don't know if the inability to expand is necessarily due to this, but this definitely a problem with systematic bias of sources from Western countries not likely covering this. --M asem (t) 12:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the recent natural disasters in Brazil (on here) or SA (anywhere) either. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the recent violence in Chad or B.Faso either. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sidhu Moose Wala

 * Oppose Needs heavy copy edit for poor English and slang phrasing ("On the next day, case was registered on him for the song", "Moose Wala founded a record label of his name and released numerous tracks on the record label.", "He released the first song "Warning Shots", which is diss track to Karan Aujla's track Lafaafe").  No update for death either. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Death Update was added. >>> Extorc . talk  18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated and copy edited by User:DeluxeVegan and User:Fylindfotberserk Venkat TL (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support One of the biggest Indian singers in recent history. Not posting this would be direct evidence of Wikipedia's massive American bias, where even the deaths of mediocre, relatively unpopular American celebrities gets posted. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B918:FF3C:751E:85F5 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a notable person outside India. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make any difference, per the RFC linked in the nomination.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also disturbingly false - I've seen multiple news stories here in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that for RD noms, "recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - He is well known person among the Punjabi community around the world specially in India, Canada and the UK. He is most well known among the Sikhs. His membership with the INC and participation in the 2020-2021 Farmers' protest also makes him known even more. Debjyoti Gorai 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- Well known subject and notable event. -Tow (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for an RD. And as Lai/the ITN template above notes, notability is not a factor for RD noms, only the article quality (prose et al) should be discussed here. Gotitbro (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Port Harcourt stampede

 * Support once destubbed current article is far off main page standards. Juxlos (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've put some time into expanding the article based on what I could find online. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d say it could use a little bit more - at 1700 characters I’m a little hesitant to call it for a blurb ITN. Juxlos (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment needs a map to fully implement the DISASTERSTUB then good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a map to the article, please check if it is in accordance to the stub guide or not. Please ping me back if it is not. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until fully destubbed. Per LaserLegs, map should be added. I have tagged the article as under construction, so we still have some time before we can blurb it. Side note, did we ever decide whether "stampede" or "crowd crush" would be better in this scenario? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Stubby. One-third of 290 words of text is background. Seems to have been a group riot stampede. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing implied to be a riot. It's comparable to what happens on Black Fridays, stores open their doors and people rush and push over each other to try to get at the bargains first, though here it resulted in 31 deaths. And it has international coverage so, outside of the stubby article size, it definitely is the type of mass casualty incident we'd post. --M asem (t) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - This is easily important enough & the article is almost good enough. Had this happened in the developed world, it would have already been posted. I used the word stampede because RS do. The original blurb is too long. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little harsh, it's not always down to bias. There's far few fewer editors from that part of the world and local sources are harder to find on the internet, so it's only natural this is the way these things pan out.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Had it happened in the developed world, far more editors & readers would be interested in it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on my read, its simply this is an area of the world not routinely covered by English and/or Western-based sources, meaning that there's a lack of information to be used for expanding the article. The event seems to have support of being recognized at ITN, but the lack of sourcing is what is limiting. --M asem (t) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - term stampede is widely use in Nigerian media. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Has been tagged for expansion but as of now is barely more than a stub. Gotitbro (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article a little more but I honestly believe we've summarised all the information that's out there online about this incident right now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ergo, wait. -- Sca (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning support I've tidied up the existing references so what's there is properly formatted and makes use of all the parameters that it can.  Schwede 66  05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article now looks sufficiently good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, The article is good. Alex-h (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lester Piggott

 * Oppose as stands 19 citation needed tags, not including the whole of his extensive honours section. I'm unsure as to whether blurb could be a possibility, as he was the record Derby winner with nine, and competed for nearly a half century. I would say the average person on the street in the UK knows only him and Frankie Dettori, though I can't speak for the rest of the world. Horse racing can hardly be called a niche due to the millions (billions?) put into it by the richest people in the world in order to get winners. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 9 tags now. I guess you mean "Major wins" which is wholly unsourced (although many of the horses have their own articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing needs to be fixed, content appears alright otherwise. Can be considered for a blurb but as it stands, no. Gotitbro (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * support - lots of unsourced information, CN tags and quite a few MOS issues, such as flags in the competition victories section. Also, the shirts under the infobox take up about 8 pages on mobile view.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Supporting now, have made some changes for MOS.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Refs now added (citation needed tags removed). Seth Whales   talk  19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done Seth, great work. Any ideas about the "Major wins" section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments: The green boxes of jerseys placed just under the infobox, presumably not added there just as pretty decorations, need to be explained and sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On that, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They should never have been included in the article relating to Lester Piggott, they should only be in a specific horse race, such as 1983 Epsom Derby. They include also include second and third place finishes too, I have therefore removed them. I have been bold. Seth Whales   talk  21:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I started a topic is because this isn't restrained to only this item - see Walter Swinburn for instance.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should also be removed too. Seth Whales   talk  21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Cite banner too, as each race win does not need to be referenced as this information is widely available such as Willie Carson, Pat Eddery, Eddie Delahoussaye etc.  Seth Whales   talk  21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

- how does that source this information? These victories are uncited.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that this would all have been covered in major UK newspapers at the time, such at The Times. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added an archived reference as a source at bottom of the "Major wins" section from racingbase.com. Is it now good to go? Seth Whales   talk  06:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Issues mentioned above, including citation of Major wins section and the disruptive list of jersey pictures, appear to have been resolved satisfactorily. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/ Blurb : Bujar Nishani

 * Comment I had planned to nominate it as well, since I started editing it. Between tomorrow and the next day I will try to expand the content and add more references. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment certainly needs a lot of inline citations. Oppose blurb - if I understand correctly President of Albania is a semi-ceremonial position and he served for 5 years during a period of relatively nothing happening in there. Juxlos (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at it? It's a headache to be using information sources with a language I don't know at all. But I think the basics are there. Copyediting may be necessary. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updating, Alsoriano97. --PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With more than 1200 words, this is more than long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found at expected spots, with all non-English sources AGF'd. No glaring formatting problems. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. (But, this is my nom, so I may be biased.) --PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Cannes Film Festival

 * Comment Needs a poster, awards section, plot (currently a single-line summary), for a film which won a major award reception section is bare-bones. Themes and analysis and the director's viewpoint/style (has also won the same award prior). The prod/disto companies listed in the ib are too large, only the major/directly involved ones should be listed and the list culled. Gotitbro (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For posting to ITN, it does not need to be that developed. It needs to be well sourced and beyond stub length, which this is. --M asem (t) 19:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized that, was listing what an ideal film article for the second d'Or winner should at least be. Though a poster and a basic plot summary are still necessitated. Gotitbro (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The festival article needs a lot of work, as it's just a list of tables at the moment. Nothing in the lead to say who actully won too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more prose and lots more sources- most of the information in tables isn't sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the film article is nearly close to being a target as well, lacking a few citations (and it is more than just plot). It would be good if this could be highlighted as a bolded link too. --M asem (t) 19:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Champions League Final

 * Oppose - Article needs a lot of work. No match summary, no prose in the Road to the final, several unsourced paragraphs, and not enough information on the pre-match entry issues.  Sounder Bruce  21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state - match summary is completely unsourced, despite there being no shortage of sources to be used. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to support. Article is much improved and now cited Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not suitable until the summary is sourced (as well as other information).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article has been improved and now meets quality standards for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would suggest featuring 2021-22 UEFA Champions League instead, with the blurb stating “…won the 2021-22 UEFA Champions League”.Tvx1 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now that there's a sourced match summary. Article is now good enough to be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * looks like article has improved since when you voted, would you be kind enough to take a look again? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Still some outstanding cn tags. Also, it appears that everything to do with the delayed kick-off has been spun off into 2022 UEFA Champions League final chaos, leaving just a sentence in this article. That should be expanded to a proper summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Quality seems sufficient and worth posting ASAP to avoid the nomination becoming stale. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The game result is not significant. What's all over the news is the chaos at the stadium – widespread muggings, ticket issues, tear gas and more.  This is so significant that there's a separate spinoff article but the lead of the target article says nothing about it and so seems to be a whitewash. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're no doubt aware that this is an INTR nomination so it's only the quality which is of concern in this nomination. If you wish to make a separate nomination for the chaos or suggest an amalgamated blurb here, that's fine, but stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point please. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Andrew is trying to say that he doesn't view the nominated article as being complete? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew has a policy of opposition to any sporting event being posted on ITNR, his vote can almost certainly be disregarded. The Kip (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not getting posted with citation needed tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None remaining now. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marko Račič

 * Support looks more than good enough for AFD (with AGF on the non-English sources). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Syafi'i Maarif

 * Support Plenty of sources and article has good length. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With more than 1000 words of readable prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found where they are expected (I AGF'd all non-English refs), and formatting looks fine, too. And Earwig didn't find anything wrong. This wikibio could use another round of copyediting, perhaps by a native English speaker, but otherwise, it's READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angelo Sodano

 * Oppose on quality, a lot of cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, notable figure, read the AP source to see his notability Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that for RD noms, "recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Notability is not to be considered, unless there is a blurb to consider. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those CN tags have been fixed. Should hopefully be ready to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. Nice work Fakescientist! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ciriaco De Mita

 * Posted to RD. Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 15:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Shapiro

 * Support article is adequate in length and sourcing. Juxlos (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) International Booker Prize

 * Given that the prize is awarded to the book (with recognition of the author and translator), rather as an award to the author, the book should really be a target article here, and in that situation, it needs lots of help. --M asem (t) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have been seeing greater recognition of translators in recent times but unfortunately the translator here does not appear to have an article. Would be great if Daisy Rockwell can be blue-linked as well. Gotitbro (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a currently a Draft:Daisy Rockwell which could use editing. Joofjoof (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was most recently denied mainspace status on notability grounds: diff. Surely that's no longer the case, with the Booker win? (Still, neither it nor the novel's article are ready for the Main Page.) Moscow Mule (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding the link to Rockwell in the blurb. Thanks Moscow Mule, Thriley, and others.Joofjoof (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to go. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of the possible target articles seems expanded enough for posting (author; book; prize).  Spencer T• C 16:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andy Fletcher (musician)

 * Needs some work - Needs a handful of refs... but more importantly, where is the discography? - Floydian τ ¢ 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would't it be at Depeche Mode discography (incidentally, a featured list no less, so an example of exactly how to do it)? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd think it still warrants a section link or summary style. Bands go through lineup changes, and musicians often gig outside of their primary group. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was just a A Question of Time before it was added.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Needs more sources, wants fewer repeated words. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Agree his bio needs a lot more work. Looks like it's Citation Time Again...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a TON of references (and a few CN tags). I'll take another look later today to get the bare info up to date.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As far as I can tell, everything is now sourced. Give me a ping if anything isn't, or needs adding. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All CN tags are taken care of, looks good to go. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Mass Shootings in the United States

 * This doesn't pass the laugh test, I'm afraid. WaltCip- (talk)  18:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? As stated above I'm not a regular here so a bit of WP:DBTN would be appreciated, but I think this meets all of the criteria laid out for ongoing additions. At any rate, I would reckon it's eligible enough for a discussion/debate? AviationFreak💬 18:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone laughing at this is (IMO) a horrible person, I can't imagine someone would laugh at a a shooting. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although... 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support From the discussion about the Robb Elementary shooting nomination here and seeing how ongoing this is and how two of the country's mass shootings happening basically a week apart, I feel this is worth adding to ongoing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not an ongoing event, it's a series of unrelated mass shootings caused by poor gun control. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles such as this aren't added to ongoing since there really isn't an end date. It's similar to nominating an article about the modern age or search for a cure for cancer for ongoing – yes it's happening, but it's been happening for a while, and it'll probably continue happening long after we're dead. The recent shootings were disconnected, and, as weird as it is to say, not that much out of the ordinary. If this were a series of connected, planned, terrorist attacks over a span of a week for instance, then it would be different. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is a long running problem, but it would absolutely inappropriate to treat all US mass shootings as part of the same event. --M asem (t) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even as I feel like it's constant, these shootings not actually a singular event, but a series of multiple events as a result of a decades-long underlying causes. It's inappropriate and mis-characterizing to say they're all the same, connected, one event. It's a series of events. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural Oppose while the most recent slaughter is still on the main page under ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment this has indeed been mentioned by several commenters on the Buffalo and Uvalde nominations. I'm not sure if linking to a list is the best course of action though, despite it likely being the most updated. I'd hope there might be a less-listy article we could feature, on the line of Gun violence in the United States but more focused on recent events. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it may seem this way, we’re not actually at war. Trillfendi (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Absolutely not. This is essentially connecting dots that we should not be connecting under any circumstances. Kafoxe (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I think mass shootings in the US are "dots" that are absolutely worth connecting as they show just how common these things are in the US opposed to other countries. This discussion is about the problem of whether our connecting of these dots should be put on the Main Page. AviationFreak💬 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They are connected dots on the top of gun violence in the US, but they are not connected events outside of a long circulous route of legislation, case law, socioeconomic problems, and more. --M asem (t) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY Strong Oppose - This isn't even an ongoing event, just something (bad) common in the USA. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan White (Yes drummer)

 * Support Well sourced. Discography could be more sourced, or easily split off into a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With the article not being that big, WP:AVOIDSPLIT seems applicable. We shouldn't split just to fast track an RD post. —Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, quite good drummer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Discography still needs work. --PFHLai (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now fully sourced by User:Grimes2. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Is this thing on?" etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted One Cn left.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed, RD Posted) RD/Blurb: Ray Liotta

 * Oppose per the usual requirements to source filmography etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The real sad thing is that you take out his filmography, and there's not a lot left of his biography :(  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because although he was a reasonable actor, I think I could list 100 actors right now who are more prominent than he was and they wouldn't be blurbed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for obvious reasons. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The filmography section is unsourced. I'm also weak oppose on a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Support Article looks good. I remember when I strongly supported Jean Paul Belmondo for getting a blurb and one of the requirements was that there be a "legacy" section or something that highlighted his impact on French cinema. If such can be done for Liotta then I might lean towards a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Unexpected, here death is the story. And he is worldwide known, prolific actor with career ranging from crime films to comedies.  I added one more reliable source.Kirill C1 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don't think I'll be looking out for Death of Ray Liotta or Funeral of Ray Liotta. Unexpected, sure, tragic, definitely, blurb-worthy?  Absolutely not in a million years. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He is extremely famous for Goodfellas and numerous other films. It is possible that such article appears. The requirement for blurb is met. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fame is an insufficient condition to blurb someone's death. --M asem (t) 17:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per ITNRD: In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link.. Exceptions can be made on an exceptional basis for major figures like if the Queen died or something, but clearly blurbs are not intended to be used merely for deaths of famous people. If we allowed that, ITN would be clogged with death blurbs. 4iamking (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Page looks good, but unless i'm missing something there doesn't seem to be anything that I can think of why this should be blurbed. Being a famous actor isn't blurb worthy. 4iamking (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * He was in the middle of filming and has several unreleased films. His death affects several other articles, which is one of the requirements for this type of blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you get these "Requirements" from? 4iamking (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Being a well-known actor isn't enough for the blurb. Quality looks acceptable, assuming we are OK with the filmography being shunted off into a separate article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only blurbs are not for household names or famous people. They need to show being a transformative aspect to their field, and he clearly did not reach that. --M asem (t) 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But there are different kinds of blurbs. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Fine. Grimes2 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article looks adequate. Indifferent on blurb. Yeah, he was well known. But not an A lister. On the other hand, his death is surprising (and sad). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are sources calling him legendary . Also, some views on him not being A-lister may differ "In 1990, Liotta reached A-List status with his iconic performance as Henry Hill in the Martin Scorsese classic ". Variety calls him marquee name . Kirill C1 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He was nominated for a Golden Globe and picked up a handful of second tier, though WP:NOTABLE, awards. No other top tier award nominations. So no, I don't think he was an A lister. He was a well known actor who was steadily employed with some good roles to his credit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Emmy is top tier award. He was also nominated for Screen Actors Guild Awards and won Film Independent Spirit Awards, these are top tier awards too. As for why he was not nominated for Academy Award - we may look at nominees for the years he was in contention. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think is ready, as the unsiurced filmography was spun out in the last few hours, burying the problem that TRM pointed out. That needs to be fixed. --M asem (t) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Jesus, what is this new metric for looking at someone who starred (lead actor) in what is considered one of the greatest American films of all time (per the Library of Congress and American Film Institute) and essentially saying "eh, tough titty"? Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon, Muppets from Space isn't that good...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * His honey business was controversial. Joofjoof (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I felt myself groaning "Oh, no" the moment I saw someone had tried to propose a blurb for this. It always devolves into the same thing, what amounts to a mudslinging upon the dead as editors vie to proclaim that the deceased wasn't sui generis or Mandela-esque enough to warrant a blurb. Let's please not do this again. For the record, RD only.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Unfortunate news, but I think some of us might be overestimating how influential Liotta was. Will Malcolm McDowell get a blurb? What about Keir Dullea? Did Danny Aiello get one? Anyway, Ray Liotta filmography needs a lot of work sourcing-wise. And I'm not so sure about the first few citations in the actor's article. Mooonswimmer 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only And should be added quickly. Inexpiable (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready, oppose blurb. Clear difference between a transformative actor and just a popular one (who should have gotten an Oscar for Goodfellas, but I digress). De Niro will one day sadly get a blurb, but that's the high standard it should be, in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD Unsourced filmography. Forking doesn't fix that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only&mdash;Ray Liotta is a well-known, accredited actor whose legacy includes legendary performances in works like Goodfellas or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. However, I feel that an actor being given an ITN blurb requires a truly extraordinary career, something that is above and beyond merely being famous; they have to be iconic on an entirely different level. If we were talking about someone like Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, or even the likes of Johnny Depp or Samuel L. Jackson, then I think the argument could be made. Ray Liotta? He's a noteworthy actor, yes, but I don't think he quite makes it to blurb-worthy status. Kurtis (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, and this looks ready to go. I think Kurtis above has laid out the same thoughts that I had. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose again why are we repeating his image, and where did the filmography go? This is not an appropriate use of a content fork, just to rush a nomination to the main page.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd argue it was definitely of sufficient length to warrant forking... Made the old page look ridiculous, as it probably took up half the article height. Although I do absolutely agree we shouldn't post until the new fork is up to par. Been working on it; slowly getting there. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd argue you're completely wrong. The fork would only be warranted if the rest if the article was huge and needed splitting for length reasons. Which is plainly not the case, and now the filmography is just empty on this page for no reason. Once it's put back we can continue considering whether it's up nto par. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry all - my bad. I thought it would be a good solution in this case. Big thanks to Buttons for doing all the sourcing on that, too!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb dozens of actors born in his decade can be found that are more impactful than him. No impact disclosed in article. Definitely not equivalent to a world leading international-quality sportsperson, professor etc etc Oppose RD due to inappropriate cutting of core info Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready for RD. Discussion for blurb can continue, although the trend seems to be in opposition. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not at all ready for RD, as the filmography has been illegitimately forked off simply to get around it not being cited. Please return it to the article and cite it properly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo RD Eventually Article needs work, and he didn't live like Robert De Niro nor die in storybook ending fashion, but did have beautiful eyes (relative to Yasin Malik's, anyway, not on Meg Foster's level). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Filmography has been put back and fully sourced, so looked good to do. Consensus for a blurb seems unlikely to develop, so will leave it at that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Five {cn} tags remain in the Filmography section. --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All dealt with now. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only. He was a prolific, popular actor who was active until his unexpected, sudden death. However, he was nowhere near important enough for a blurb. Less than 1% of entertainers are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not probably in the 50 greatest/most well-known actors of his era (most of whom would also probably struggle to get blurbed), so definitely not blurb worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julie Beckett

 * Posted Stephen 03:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown

 * Oppose posting an update just because it's been two months of crackdown. Stephen 03:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Morton L. Janklow

 * Support American literary agent, t's look crossed and i's duly dotted. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Both reliable sources for his death say it was caused by heart failure. That's the pertinent information here, not that he also (implicitly) had/suffered from it for some unspecified time beforehand. It's not a dealbreaker, it's just weird, and not indicative of the article's state at this concerned citizen's officially declared time of support. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it generally issue free?  I'd say that this article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Murphy (broadcasting)

 * Weak support Relatively brief and could use additional depth about what was done in his roles but meets minimum standards as-is; referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Partygate

 * Consensus will not develop to post this.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This was closed a few months ago, no? We already decided that, if action is ever taken (yeah right), then it can be blurbed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb should be about the recently released Sue Gray report (i.e. in the news) on the scandal, not the belated criticisms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The image also does not signify anything perceivable, why is it blurred by the way? Gotitbro (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It comes from the aforementioned report. Presumably those blurred are civil servants who aren't relevant. We don't necessarily have to have the image on the ITN article, but it's there as an idea.
 * Added a new blurb, hopefully that changes things. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been brewing for months, it is unclear from the blurb what the triggering event is to make it blurb-worthy now. Having that blurb linking to that article on the main page at this point in time will only confuse readers as to what Wikipedia is going on about.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a new blurb, may need editing down for length but that should lead us on the right track XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Already discussed before; no meaningful updates since. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Biased pseudo-support/In reality oppose I would expect every true patriot of their nation to try and expose corruption such as this in any manner they can. But nothing much has really happened, other than less-than-unexpected new revelations..--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:FDB3:F16A:D072:DAAF (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest maybe striking the first half of the !vote/comment with it, in order to avoid any potential beliefs that we are here to WP:RGW. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, this whole nom is a WP:RGW in principle. WaltCip- (talk)  22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't going to happen. Blurb literally equates to head of government gets criticised. Yes, and? If Boris resigns (or are pushed), then we can post the change in head of government under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Yasin Malik

 * Weak support - Good article, pretty notable for the region, and has caused some unrest in the region, not sure whether notable globally. نعم البدل (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really newsworthy/notable outside of India and Pakistan. If this were some Proud Boys leader in the US, then I'm sure that it'd be shot down almost immediately. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to start an argument, but it's a bit unfair to portray the separatist movement as similar to the Proud boys. نعم البدل (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Point 2 of Voicing an opinion on an item discourages you from opposing because it relates to one country XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Notable event and significant figurehead to a movement. Not sure why you would even compare a nationalist movement to the Proud boys, thats a really horrid comparison. 4iamking (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is not quite as major as convicting the leader of a terrorist group but still significant to the region for several decades. --M asem (t) 19:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be a notable verdict from a clearly underrepresented region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Notable for ITN but recent developments should be expanded a little more in the main body. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Leader of a significant terrorist organization. Significant effects for the foreseeable future in the Kashmir region. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know much about him/the related conflict, but it certainly is getting a lot of news coverage, certainly enough for ITN posting in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be in good shape, checking the news coverage indicates this is being covered by the news appropriately for ITN. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above, plus anything to get yet another mass shooting off the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment before it gets arbitrarily posted, can we write the blurb in decent English with some punctuation please? I've added an alt. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * was this pulled? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , why do the words 'Kashmiri separatist leader' in the blurb link to the wider Kashmir conflict instead of the more appropriate/specific Insurgency in Kashmir? Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Azadi march

 * Oppose The article itself is a stub basically, and also the significance seems to be rather limited based on the limited amount of reporting that I can find, It seems like the Local authorities have Banned it. 4iamking (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Wait It does seem quite prevented, as of now, a dashed hope. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and see what the impact of this is. Right now, the article is short and the impact of this march is low- need to see if the impact increases significantly or not. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and see, per above Alex-h (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any word on how 'long' it's gonna be? -- Sca (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Show's Over, Folks! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Imran Khan has given the government a 6 day ultimatum. This is most likely going to be a long process.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the article needs a lot of work as currently it is barely more than a stub. It also does not include any information about the violence used by the police, even though it is being covered heavily in the media. Needs a lot of work.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 08:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back now - I agree - we should probably wait a bit, and to also improve the article. نعم البدل (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – The long and short of it is, wait to see if something actually happens. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The march has been called off thus its time to close this. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hindustani.Hulk. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Thompson (American football executive)

 * Posted Stephen 00:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Texas school shooting

 * Oppose not really 'in the news' around the world. Sum Kompreni (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost nothing we post on ITN is in the news around the world... -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

*Oppose This is a routine incident. Americans shoot each other up all the time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Fair enough. Stricken because of the complaints below.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? I mean, that is one way to put it. Sum Kompreni (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC).
 * This attitude needs to be stopped, its harmful to discussions. Yes, mass shooting do happen all too frequently in the US, no question, but it is not like the general public are all ready to shoot each other, like this tone gives. To most of USians, this situation sucks but we have so ineffectual givt to make any fixes to it. Additionally, school shootings of this scale are very rare and not the typical shooting events we ignore at ITN. --M asem  (t) 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve stated many times before that the real news to post would be a law restricting gun acquisition which would prevent this from happening (for now, we have only numerous lies from US presidents such as this or this). I’m sorry if you don’t like the tone and you think it’s harmful to discussions, but it’s an undoubted fact that Americans shoot each other up all the time. The truth always hurts and better to have it said in a direct way instead of griping about how tragic all these incidents are or what mundane records a shooting has broken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Its insulting to those of us that are American editors to see someone say "Americans shoot each other up..." America 100% has a gun control and mass shooting problem. That doesnt mean the whole country is fun happy as that suggests, and we're hands tied to get any type of better gun control passed to a point of frustration. Hence why the request to back off that excessive rhetoric. --M asem  (t) 23:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just because mass shootings happen almost everyday in the U.S. doesn't mean we're desensitized to a mass shooting where young elementary school children were massacred. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rare? There were two last year in elementary schools. Such things have never happened in many countries! It's sad, but it's predictable, not notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A man killed 18 young children.
 * That is not routine. Djprasadian (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refactor the remark. It's grossly offensive. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I’m on the fence about notability, that remark is a horrendous attitude to have and an even worse choice of words. Shame on you. The Kip (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't news. There's a mass killing in the United States basically every week. That it effects different populations over different incidents does not make any single incident special or unique. Gun violence in the United States should be treated as one single ongoing current event. That's what it looks like on the outside. People in other countries die. Ten people just died of a storm like we've never had in Ontario in ten years and tens of thousands are without power. Our capital city is basically out of comission. 142.126.80.182 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality far from ready. Being a school shooting with 14 young students dead leads me to support it, although it is routine in America. For now I remain neutral. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is looking pretty good rn. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support 19 children…dantesque. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- School shootings that kill 10+ children in the United States are uncommon, and the shooting has made international news (check BBC, etc.). We posted, for example, the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 (the last time there was a mass shooting like this at an elementary school). As an aside, this is not ITNR, and I'm not sure why it was marked at being so. I've just unmarked it. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would prefer if we don't have a permanent "US mass shooting" in the ITN blurb box. YD407OTZ (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is posted, the other ITN blurb will roll off. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Death toll is still described as "uncertain", but if true this would be the deadliest shooting in the US since 2019. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmao, "since 2019". As though that's actually a long time in the context of deadliest school shooting ever 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, assuming the death counts currently being reported are accurate. Yes, mass shootings happen routinely in the U.S., but this is still a large one, and we tend to post those, plus it's young children who were murdered, which is likely to generate more coverage than if it were adults. No comment on quality as I have not evaluated it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It doesn't matter if another US mass shooting is already in the ITN blurb box, this type of shooting is unusual, the event itself is notable and in the news, and the article is in good quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 14 elementary school kids. Fourteen. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose regretfully, unless this turns out to be terrorism related or something similar. Otherwise, at the risk of sounding callous, it's just another day and another mass shooting in the US. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say just another day and another mass shooting in the US is pretty callous, and not at all a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking as both an American, and a gun owner, I respectfully disagree. The only unusual aspect of this, is the body count for this particular event and the ages of the victims. But if you look at the list of mass shooting in the US, we are killing each other with a near run of the mill frequency. If someone wants to post an ongoing nomination for the mass slaughter in this country, I'd give serious consideration to supporting it. But I am done with these individual nominations. The lives of these children and their teacher are no less sacred than the four people shot to death in a public housing complex in Puerto Rico two days ago, or the two children and mother murdered in Alabama on the same day, or... it goes on and on. The United States has become synonymous with mass murder and I am not inclined to support events at ITN that are more or less routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you... up until being done with these individual nominations. This shooting is "in the news" in a big way, similar to Buffalo last week, and in ways that most of the shootings on our lists of U.S. shootings are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support - This isn't your average shooting, this literally killed 14 people, most were children. Definitely news worthy. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, mass shootings are sadly common in the U.S., but the relatively high death toll and location at an elementary school make this notable enough for ITN. Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While mass shootings are common in the US, a mass shooting at an elementary school with a high death toll is rare, this is the deadliest one since Sandy Hook in 2012 I believe. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the deadliest in only 10 years makes it rare. It's certainly not the only elementary school shooting in a decade in that country! It only becomes notable if the murderer is a good shot? Surely, if anything, mass shootings in USA should be an ongoing issue, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Covid.


 * Support - Extenuating circumstances come into play that warrant the posting of an otherwise routine shooting.--WaltCip- (talk)  22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Even though mass shootings are unfortunately quite common in this country, this is one of the deadliest in modern history, with 17 dead, most of them young children. The mass shooting in Buffalo, which killed 10 people, is listed on ITN. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due to the last sentence of the lead: "The attack was one of the deadliest mass shootings in American history and the deadliest at an elementary school since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012." Would've nominated myself if this wasn't up already.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 22:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A shooting like this in countries that have never had such a shooting (or even one with a lot less casualties) might be notable. But a mass shooting in the USA? Didn't we have one of these last week, that everyone swore up and down was the exception? We can't have exceptions every week. What's notable is that you can open-carry a machine gun in Texas. But that happened in 2021. That people then shoot people en masse is the completely predictable and non-notable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Predictable"? I doubt anyone showing up to Robb Elementary School "predicted" that there would be a shooting (aside from the perp). Simply opposing a mass shooting because it's in the USA is a bad-faith argument IMHO. And you're very busy pushing to post a quite-on-schedule and predictable infrastructure project. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's entirely predictable - not at that school, that day. But in the greater picture of things. I'd oppose posting such mass-shootings wherever they happen frequently. It just so happens that the only place it happens so regularly is the USA. How you can compare this to one of the biggest mega-projects in the world I don't know. There's been much bigger death tolls in Ukraine recently that we haven't even nominated - because it too is predictable. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Events in the Ukraine are covered by the ongoing, those aren't being ignored. M asem (t) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So why not have an "Ongoing" US mass shootings link to go beside the covid and Ukraine war links at the bottom of the ITN panel? Ericoides (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because mass shootings in the US are sporadic and unpredictable. Whereas an ongoing war and pandemic are relatively predictable in terms of casualties, simply by saying that tomorrow will probably have about as many as today --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this is making headlines internationally. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So are the interceptions of Chinese and Russian fighter jets off Japan. But like this, it's predictable and not particularly notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Go write a comprehensive article on that and I'll support it. That's not what we're discussing though. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Vehement support, you can't just wave off something of this significance and tell yourself, "You're okay and I'm okay"—especially when children have died. 169.234.70.134 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can wave it off, when it happens so frequently, and their government's response to it is to enable people to make it even easier to do. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is obviously an appeal to emotion. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * False. This is a notable event. CR-1-AB (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Uvalde and Buffalo aren't making headlines just for being deadly mass shootings. Buffalo was a racist terror attack on African-Americans and Uvalde killed children at elementary school. That's why Buffalo went on ITN and why Uvalde should too. GeicoHen (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Top story around the world, deadliest school shooting in nearly a decade. It is indeed sad that the story this would be pushing out of the ITN box is the Buffalo shooting two weeks ago, but that doesn't make this any less noteworthy. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- A schooling shooting in America is pretty much the equivalent of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan: it happens every Tuesday. We certainly don't report every suicide bombing in Afghanistan on the front page. Afghani children are no less valuable than American children. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This type of everyday barbarity in America is routine by now. Deaths in routine natural disasters or crimes typically take a death toll in the hundreds, not in the tens as in this case, to make the front page. The same applies to the Buffalo shooting, which I'd have also opposed posting.  Sandstein   23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because of the heavy media coverage. I would wait a while however as the death toll still needs to be settled. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support Although the US is of course used to such shootings, this one pokes above the threshold I would set for ITN coverage.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:82C:3F5E:DAE1:9CB8 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, but specify "fifteen people are killed in an elementary school shooting", as these are less common as a subset of school shootings. BD2412  T 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- people seem to think that mass shootings in schools that have high fatality rates in the US are common. They are not. Yes, mass shootings are (relatively) common in the US, but mass shootings at public schools are uncommon, and mass shootings at public schools that kill large numbers of children are incredibly rare. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not incredibly rare there. Seems to me there was an ITN about one only 10 years ago! I struggle to find ANYTHING similar for most major countries - even during wartime. Most recent I can find in this country, is a single child wounded in a 1902 shooting, who died later - aged 8 but it's not clear if they were of elementary age or not ; that though would be incredibly rare. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies that these shootings do not happen with anything of this sort of frequency in any other country. That does not mean that when we have a mass shooting with a major news response that we should ignore it because "just another day in 'Murica". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the last mass shooting with a high death toll at an elementary school was back in 2012 (signifying the rarity of this tragic event). While I 100% agree mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., one where there is a significant loss of life of 2nd to 4th graders is rare. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once a decade is not rare (let alone incredibly rare). It's all too common. I'm stunned anyone would call this rare, for this type of event! Nfitz (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where in the ITN guidance does it say that an event has to be "rare"? We just posted the EPL champions even though we have one once a year. That's not "rare". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying rare to those calling this a common shooting in the U.S. It's pretty damn rare, even in the U.S., for a shooting with a high death toll of young students (elementary school) to happen. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once a decade in a country of 330 million people, with more guns than people, is pretty rare. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This American shooting has actually made headline news in Australia, on more than one outlet. (Most of them don't.) And I heard some American politician add love to thoughts and prayers, so he must really want to fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support probably in time for the next double digit mass shooting to also push this one off ITN later. Juxlos (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another comment -- Per local news reports, Texas Rangers now say 18 children, 3 adults have been killed. The death toll is now 21. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per NYT we have 19 people killed (18 students, 1 teacher) that's already two more than the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (which had a blurb posted). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I would have opposed the blurb currently sitting on the main page, but this one is clearly of much longer-lasting significance. 2600:1700:1154:3500:FD29:76B1:8559:ABD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Sandy Hook had 28 killed and basically zero long term significance so I doubt this one will have any. Juxlos (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Tragic event with a high death toll receiving widespread news coverage.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Elementary school shootings with a death toll this high are routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, given that 2022 Buffalo shooting is still on the Main Page, and this is comparable or higher in significance given the age of the victims. Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Why should the 2022 Buffalo shooting make it to the front page but not this shooting? Thriley (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Motive here is unclear, there was a white supremacy motive in the Buffalo shooting which makes it more unique. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The racial angle made it appear that it have some long-term impact. This has less impact. There is no indication that school shootings in the US have any effect; the deaths of children are regarded as an acceptable price to pay for freedom.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The deaths of children are regarded as an acceptable price to pay for freedom" in this context is the most utterly repulsive sentence I've heard in a long time. 9563rj (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I can't fault Hawkeye7 for openly voicing what so many gun rights activists in the US apparently believe. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support more deaths than even buffalo. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support number of dead keeps going up, which makes it unique, and the ages of the victims makes it a bit unique as well. On the other hand I can see why others are saying this isn't unique, which I take into account as well. On shootings, it's all about how unique the shooting is. That's the standard I evaluate by. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Two notable but unfortunate events can happen closely together, a racist attack livestreamed and the deliberate killing of children are both particularly noteworthy even though mass shootings as a whole in the US might not be. But we should wait for all points to come in before moving to post this. Gotitbro (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support largely due to the high (and growing!) number of dead, the significance of it being an elementary school, and the amount of coverage. I reiterate support for adding List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 to ongoing once this rolls off. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unfortunately, the death toll is quite high and growing. Definitely a notable incident.--WMrapids (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose by default all mass shootings. Other than filling in the blanks (location, perp, number of deaths) there is very little of encyclopedia-value in any individual event. Who remembers any details about San Jose, Indianapolis, or Boulder? The sole case being made here is "that's the highest body count in a few years" & that just feels like we're rewarding it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This seems to have been the mass shooting with the most deaths this year in 2022 in the U.S., with 21 deaths, 18 of which are children. AkiraRorschach (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest adding shootings which make 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens as part of WP: ITN/R. Mdu02 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Already one of the deadliest school shootings in the history of the United States <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Vehement Support A man murdered 18 young children. EIGHTEEN. YOUNG. CHILDREN. This is the deadliest school shooting in America since Sandy Hook. Djprasadian (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support 21 deaths, 18 of which are young chidren. There's a lot of media outlets talking about it all over the world, it doesn't happen often. Their age too. Even if mass shootings in the US might happen sometimes, not on this level. Win8x (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. 9th deadliest shooting in the US history, their is a lot of school shootings in the united states but the death count is extremely high, deserves to be in the wikipedia main page. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose if we post this we might as well put List of mass shootings in the United States into Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Deadliest school shooting in a decade with 18 children killed deserves to be ITN. 9563rj (talk) 2:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll at 19 and counting, deadliest elementary school shooting in a decade, appeared on international news such as BBC Article substantially improved, easy decision to support. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, IMHO the most influential US news item today. Will be the basis of the lead headline in every US newspaper tomorrow. That this is happening so frequently is EXACTLY the reason this needs to be ITN. BusterD (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I added Altblurb4.  I think we need to say who's responsible for the ongoing carnage.  What's especially newsworthy is that this happens over and over again, and nothing changes. Jehochman Talk 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Altblurb is a violation of NPOV. CR-1-AB (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do explain. He's on the record offering "prayers" (no "thoughts" yet), and he has not suggested anything that should be done to prevent future massacres.  Perhaps the text can be finessed to be more accurate, especially if he has suggested something.  If he suggests arming little school children with handguns, by all means, let's post it so the world knows what he's thinking. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one hell of an editorialization. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ted Cruz has suggested placing armed guards in elementary schools. Lets be thorough and say what happened, and why it's significant.  Perhaps we can say that the shooting occurred, triggering calls for gun control by Democrats, and calls for more guns by Republicans. This helps the reader understand that it's at the heart of a major culture battle.  The story is not only about half-a-busload of children being murdered. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of an ITN blurb to "be thorough"; that's what the article is for. Funcrunch (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In the same way that we do not post every hurricane but only the worst ones, we do not post every mass shooting event in the United States but only the worst ones. This one qualifies as one of the worst ones, so I support.  I support the original blurb as the best-worded blurb and oppose alt-blurb IV as being politically biased, even if I agree with where it's coming from. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for this shooting's large and shocking loss of life, and its presence on non-US news sites such as the Guardian, France24, etc. BirdValiant (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Governor Bashing He's just one middle man between the small arms trade and Uvalde Business Directory. What do you expect from him, magic? Support usual format. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've cut it back to be purely factual, but feel free to make other suggestions. It's his state where this happened, and his reaction is newsworthy. This story is about a mass shooting and a cultural phenomenon. Jehochman Talk 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still oddly specific. Especially in a blurb where even the murderer goes unblamed. Location and death toll was good enough (for our purposes) before and it's good enough yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that every governor in every state with a school shooting has offered prayers for the victims; including this in the blurb adds nothing of value. Funcrunch (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurbs I to III, oppose alt blurb IV. It is definitely in international news. Steelkamp (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – strong consensus for posting this story, with several opposing arguments being weak, cynical, or irrelevant. The article is of sufficient length and quality for posting. Excluded the shooter in the blurb deaths, unsure of how this distinction is handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job, I feel that the shooter shouldn't be included in the death count. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Either count works, but active voice would make his exclusion truer (he was killed in a mass shooting, but a mass shooting didn't kill him). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * would "In the United States, a gunman kills 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas" be a better way to put it? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. But In the United States, a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, kills 21 people. would stay closer to the original. It's your call. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, "In the United States" might be overkill, as it can be assumed that states like Texas, New York, and California are known worldwide.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some reference points on sources implictly excluding the gunman in death counts: The New York Times: "'We Have to Act,' Biden Says After 21 Killed at Texas Elementary School", The Guardian: "Biden calls for action on gun laws after 21 killed – latest updates"—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support as there's clearly a lot of coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak, cynical, irrelevant Comment (sorry, that really was a dreadful "Posted" comment, when a lot of the Supports are "Duh, obviously it should be posted"). There's a good point made by the IP above in terms of systemic bias, in that regardless of the routine-ness of US school shootings, we tend to not post deadly events that are common in other countries. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 120 guns for every 100 people? Surprised we don't get one a week. Maybe these will be moved to Ongoing before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Good morning, rest of the world. What do you all think of this? --WaltCip- (talk)  11:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Usual comments, quite a lot of !votes (on both sides) that don't actually understand how ITN works, closed too early by an admin who gave away their own views with an unnecessary piece of snark - which wasn't even correct - while they were doing it. Par for the course when it comes to US school shootings, isn't it? Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, defining "short firearms" as Section 5 Prohibited Weapons, which effectively banned private possession of handguns almost completely in Great Britain." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, A mass shooting in an elementary school with a high number of death is a notable news. Alex-h (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at international media this morning, there is more coverage than I expected - but it's mostly in the context on politicians call for gun control, either by the President or a Senator. Should the blurb change to In the United States, politicians call for gun control as 21 people are killed in a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Elizabeth line

 * Support I was thinking of nominating this myself as it's in the news so much currently. The blurb needs a bit of work as the line mostly runs overground from Reading to Abbey Wood/Shenfield while the new tunnel for the underground section doesn't seem to have a separate name. And there's a variety of possible pictures. Unfortunately, the official pictures of the opening ceremony with the Queen, PM and Mayor all seem to have a NC licence.  But Commons has a category of alternatives.  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose while understanding that a new line on the Underground is rare, there doesn't seem to be any technical marvel (like a high speed train) or major geographic barrier reached with this (the Marmaray line was connecting the contextual split of Turkey.) --M asem (t) 13:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Digging the tunnel was actually quite a technical feat because central London has so many underground tunnels and infrastructure already. And supporting the historic buildings of places like Soho Square was done with a web of dynamic supports as the tunnel and station was constructed beneath.  See The Incredible Engineering Keeping London Level... or Crossrail innovation helps thread tunnels under London for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From a layperson pov, I don't think how the construction mattered...unless it was the first system dug with help of The Boring Company. I am sure to architechs and engineers, how they threaded the needle us interesting, but its still not a new technology wonder. --M asem (t) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because architecture and engineering are not significant when compared to important matters like the Eurovision song contest, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Enormous U.K. news, definitely not something that happens every day.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality lots of places where many more sources are needed, also lots of the history duplicates Crossrail article (and so probably isn't needed in this article). Neutral on blurb if fixed- it's a big thing in London/the UK, however, less coverage anywhere else, and this is a worldwide encyclopedia after all (which is why we don't post all the US-specific stuff that gets nominated). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is of worldwide significance is immaterial. The standard is whether the item is newsworthy and covered by reliable sources, which it very well appears to be. WaltCip- (talk)  13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is covered in reliable sources, but only in the UK. That isn't clearly significant enough coverage for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Here's a recent article in the New York Times, for example.  And, in any case, there's the standard rubric above, "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * An oft-cited tenet from the ol' ITN catechism, typically applied to parochial news of little general interest. Yawn. -- Sca (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, on article quality issues, the file used: File:Elizabeth line Map as in May 2022.svg is factually incorrect. It lists Bond Street and Old Oak Common as stations, when neither are open yet, and doesn't list Moorgate, where purple line trains are stopping at peak times. If nobody fixes article quality issues, then importance debates are meaningless. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose really? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could make a featured article, I spoze. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Massive news. Definitely an engineering marvel, although delayed for 3 and a half years. (Remember, not a tube line!) Maybe change the blurb, it's not just a tunnel, it runs out west to Reading and east to Shenfield. Angusgtw (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet it doesn't. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yes I suppose you're right. Current TfL rail services will be rebranded though. Angusgtw (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I'm a bit of a transport nerd so I actually headed out to Paddington this morning to ride on the second train from there on the new line (the first had already filled up by the time I reached the front of the queue!) But is this earth-shattering news on a global scale? I doubt it. New roads and railways are opened quite frequently, and ultimately despite the fanfare and pedantry regarding whether it's a "tube" or not, this is really a repeat of what's gone before. Also the new bit doesn't run to Reading or Shenfield, it's only the Paddington to Abbey Wood section that's new. New York Times and Le Monde don't seem to have it on their front pages today... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it were a major rail line connecting two distant places, maybe, but one of many lines in the London underground is not significant. Banedon (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The 11th line on a network up since 1863. I highly doubt we would post any other new line on any of these . The Turkish example seems to have been a major feat to make an underground tunnel under the Bosphorus, and the Ethiopia-Djibouti one is an international railway in a part of the world that lags in infrastructure, linking its biggest city and its most strategic port. What's so special about this line except being in London and named after the Queen? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Unknown Temptation. The Turkish tunnel was posted as it was considered an engineering marvel constructing a cross-straits tunnel; this seems to lack that significance. The Kip (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While sources are covering this, it is clear that from what those sources are writing that this is a purely local infrastructure thing. It's a big, important locality to be sure, but on the balance what I am reading in reliable sources does not indicate to me that this is should be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't see anything groundbreaking about this. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment To me, this seems like just another tunnel being opened. If someone can prove to me exactly how this is notable, I'll strike this out and Support per that reasoning. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the blurb doesn't mention anything special about the Elizabeth line and makes it sound like its just another tunnel being opened. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose despite all Sadiq and Boris's bluster about world beating infrastructure, this is just of local significance. I can't find it on the front page of Reuters, the New York Times, or any Czech media. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a metro line opening in just about any other city probably wouldn't get posted, a big piece of infrastructure opening can be newsworthy, especially when it accomplishes a major feat or connects previously hard to reach places together, but a connector through the centre of London, England ain't that. 4iamking (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A no-brainer. Most significant transit development in London for a century. And one of the biggest engineering projects in the world. It's a major feat, decades in the making, with difficult engineering challenges, that connects hard to reach places to each other. The bias here against major technological developments is unfortunate, given the number of times that the predictable events involving kicking a ball, or hitting it with a raquet or a stick. Given the massive news coverage about this, including internationally (it's certainly been covered here in Canada), I'm surprised that any are opposing this. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * how exactly does this connect hard to reach places together, this train doesn't go anywhere other than downtown London, as far as im concerned that isn't "hard to reach". It may cut commute times down by a few min but thats not exactly revolutionary, and new metro lines open up in various cities all the time. I was thinking more of infrastructure projects like the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link or Sinamalé Bridge that literally connect places together that wouldn't have been otherwise connected. 4iamking (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How are Reading, Berkshire and Shenfield downtown London, - they are over 100 km apart? A few minutes - the savings are far more significant than that - particularly for trips outside of central London (I'm not quite sure what you mean "downtown"). Trips to/from Canary Wharf in particular. Even in the (new) central section 40 to 50 minute journeys become 18 to 30 minute journeys - see some examples; and that doesn't include the improvements in a few months, when through trains start running, eliminating the 10-15 minute transfer at Paddington (and the 5-minute transfer at Liverpool). I really get the impression that many here aren't fully grasping the magnitude of this 30-year US$24-billion megaproject that is Crossrail. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Nfitz above. The culmination of a large infrastructure project in a large metropolitan area that took over a decade. There is no policy than an item must be of global significance; if so, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will we be posting Brussels' new metro line too? Or Birmingham's metro extension? This is quite nuts. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are any as significant ? We posted a big one in Beijing - why is that different than London? (here). Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that was a mistake too and it is worth bearing in mind that ITN does not work on the basis of common law-style precedents. Wikipedia is a very different place now to what it was in 2011 in any case. But even if it wasn't, London is not a city on a rank with Beijing in either size or global importance. This is not even the most important story on the BBC's own website anymore! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * London isn't on rank with Beijing in global importance, ? I'm sensing bias here. You ignored my question about Belgium and Birmingham. The answer is they aren't very notable at all compared to the Elizabeth Line. There isn't even an article yet for Brussels Metro line 3 - even though it's supposed to open in only 3-years time. The Crossrail article is almost 20-years old; even the French version (fr:Crossrail (Londres)) is 16-years old! The three-station extension of Line 1 of the West Midlands Metro only get's a single paragraph at West Midlands Metro, so out of date that it says it's scheduled to open in 2021! The references say it was going to cost less than £150 million! That's less than one-hundredth of the £19 billion cost of Crossrail! How are these comparable examples? It's like comparing the World Cup to a kids playoff in Bracknell! Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, - we did post the 2016 opening of the Moscow Central Circle - another significant transit line. (see here). Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But the Second Avenue Subway opening in NYC in 2017 was not posted. I wouldn't spend too much time looking into "precedent" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As ironically, I alluded to below, 2 minutes before you posted! I don't think a 3-station and 3-km extension, is significant - particularly one that doesn't provide any interchanges. A comparable London example would be the Northern line extension to Battersea which I wouldn't have suggested be ITN (it was DYK though). If they'd opened the entire proposed 14-km line in NYC, then it would have been more notable - and a similar cost to the London project. But as a megaproject, it's just wasn't that big. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I admit I was being facetious about Brussels and Birmingham. The point is that this kind of story is very meaningful to the people who happen to live in the city where it happens, and not to anyone else. It is, in other words, not the kind of thing ITN is about. For the record, London is absolutely not as important as Beijing in any serious metric. Except for the fact that I happen to live there, of course... —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's not quite true that the SAS has no interchanges, the Q train (usually the only SAS train so far) merges with a ~1 kilometer concurrency with the F train circa 0.1km before the start of their shared station. Besides taking the Q to the F you can also leave that station, walk 0.25-0.3km on the sidewalk to a different station with 4, 5, 6, N, R and W trains and interchange with any of them for free — the only place where pay-per-ride doesn't charge a full fare for re-entering the system. You can also stay on and wait for them to jump from the F line to the NQRW line where you can switch to an N, R or W train 0.1 kilometers after fusion and many other trains further down the line though by the time you can transfer to the other 3 yellow trains directly it's no longer SAS by any stretch. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on that BBC link. The page has a section heading Must See.  The lead item in that section is "Elizabeth lines opens and welcomes excited passengers".  The following section is Most watched and that item is the most popular on the entire site.  So, it is the top story on BBC News currently. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right that it is in the "Must See" section - alongside such globally important news as "Nation asked to sing Sweet Caroline for the Queen" and "Love Island could change second-hand buying habits", both of which also make it onto the front page. Perhaps we should consider featuring these too? Crossrail is curiously absent, meanwhile, from the section above with the 13 serious front-page news stories. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Question reading the article I'm left confused: this is new trackage and right of way or a new line on existing tracks or new tracks on an existing right of way? Also without a stop in Bracknell it hardly seems worth the bother. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's both. It's similar to the Paris RER.  They dug a large mainline-grade tunnel(not a much smaller Underground-grade tunnel) underneath Central London to connect rail lines in the suburbs with each other. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds that a similar infrastructure project (a major link in a major city, but not affecting multiple metropolitan areas at once) would not be nominated, let alone posted, if it weren't from London.  Sounder Bruce  20:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not true . See posted examples above for Moscow and here. There's also been other nominations that didn't get posted - such a short 2 or 3 station extensions in other big cities. We also had an ITN for the Gotthard Base Tunnel in 2016 - a similar, though cheaper, railway megaproject. Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Normally I'd Oppose this sort of thing, but I think I'll jutst stick a Support in here to contradict the large number of utterly clueless Opposes above. I'm actually astonished at the number of people who post things which immediately show that they clearly don't know what they're talking about.  Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly please show us what "they clearly don't know what they're talking about"? Thank you Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, this seems like more of a Twitter argument than a Wikipedia one... With no further evidence, it's "you're all wrong, and have no idea what you're talking about!!" Is there anything in particular that you find clueless in the discussion so far? 😎 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- not even headline news at BBC news. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above, it was earlier. It also was a week ago here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The conclusion of a large infrastructure project in a major city, for which there's precedent for posting. Interesting story with adequate RS coverage and article quality. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I have reached the same conclusion as Davey2116. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This appears to be U.S. based news, not global news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm pretty sure this is Canadian news. London, Ontario. Steelkamp (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support per above arguments. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose new metro lines are opened on China like, twice a month, and nobody even thinks to nominate them. Just because this one is massively overbudget and the UK needs 20 years to build a railway line does not make it more significant in my eyes than, say, Beijing Line 19 or Guangzhou Line 22, both metro systems having several times more traffic than the tube even pre COVID. Massive showcase of the good old Anglosphere bias. Juxlos (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major news story with fairly well sourced article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a few too many missing citations, but support in principle, as it is a nice looking article that is completely new.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This made Australian news, but only because the queen opened it, and for some reason our media is obsessed with the queen. This is certainly the world's biggest news in public transport for the year. I oppose because there is nothing ground-breaking about this line. Steelkamp (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Pignatano

 * This wikibio is long enough to qualify (695 words of readable prose). Its coverage seems fine. No concerns with its formatting. Footnotes can be found where they are expected. And Earwig can't find anything wrong. It's READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Hazel Henderson

 * Comment Needs sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem tags more footnotes & self-published need to be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone access this obituary from the Telegraph? . I think it may have additional information not covered in The NY Times obit. Thriley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? Thriley (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks good enough for RD to me. If there is another wikieditor to give it a favorable review (to vote! support) within the next few hours, I can ignore the time limit (per WP:IAR) and post it on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Horst Sachtleben

 * This wikibio is long enough to qualify (340 words). There are no concerns regarding its formatting Footnotes can be found where they are expected. All non-English sources are AGF'd. And Earwig didn't find any problems. It's READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bonar Sianturi

 * Support. I can't directly read the Indonesian news articles cited, but between Google Translate and WP:AGF, I am reasonably assured that the article is complete and accurately conveys the recent death of the subject. BD2412  T 03:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oemarsono

 * Support good to go imo, nice article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John M. Merriman

 * support John Merriman's European history survey texts have been read by countless undergrads, whose Yale classes have been freely watched by countless people online, and who never wrote a book without the Rolling Stones playing. (withdraw participation) -- Green  C  20:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs work. Most of the info is in the lead paragraph, followed by a couple of sentences that include his education. "Awards and honors" are unsourced and presented like a resume, "Published works" also uncited. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Published works section is unsourced. Please add more REFs/ISBNs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ISBNs ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Grimes2, for all the new sources. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough (450+ words of readable prose). There are no concerns regarding formatting or deployment of footnotes. And, apart from a few quotes and book titles, Earwig has found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PGA Championship

 * Oppose like almost every other golf tournament article, the "Field" section is massively overdetailed and incomprehensible to anyone other than a massive golf fan. The additional number in parentheses that always get added make no sense, because they're not explained anywhere in article, and until this is fixed, the article is not the correct quality to be on the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither the lead nor the infobox of the target article explain what the sport or format is. And they don't explain what PGA stands for.  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia not the sports pages for fans of these sports.   And there's very little significance in these events.  Obviously if you hold a sporting contest then one of the players is going to win it.  So what?  WP:NOTNEWS says plainly that "routine news coverage of ... sports ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion". Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it's an ITNR event. Your opinion on sports' significance is irrelevant (thereby making this vote invalid), the only considering factor should be the quality of the article. The Kip (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R is a guideline and so is weaker than the policy WP:NOTNEWS which therefore trumps it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ITNR has been shaped and molded by consensus. Again, Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not lone users' opinions. If you don't have a constructive reason to !vote besides personal arguments on significance and policy, I ask that you take your time somewhere else. If you have a problem with the ITNR page's consensus, open a discussion on the ITNR talk page, but for now we'll continue to operate as we always have. The Kip (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , where would you say the behavioral guideline WP:POINT fits in with all of this? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see this current discussion which proposes that WP:POINT be relegated because it is commonly misunderstood. My points are quite sincere and based on policy .  I don't expect the numerous sports fans here to agree with them but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand the point you're attempting to make when again, all ITNR sports events have been decided on a wide consensus. Should that consensus be overturned because one user believes it conflicts with policy, especially when few to no other users have vocalized the same concern? If you have a problem with the inclusion of sports events, again open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:In the news; this page is not the place for it. The Kip (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * has above quoted WP:NOTNEWS, but not included the end of the sentence, that points to WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events. ROUTINE refers to sports scores and everyday items. It also says that Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. The word may is hardly prescriptive, and the context certainly doesn't preclude the rare sports event that is very notable. Either way, this isn't the place to discuss the if ITNR needs to be revised; see WT:ITNR. Nfitz (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, just to clarify this, is now advocating for the removal of every single sports event from ITNR?  Or just the PGA tournament?  Or something else?  I think we've gone well beyond making a point to be disruptive here.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear the former, unfortunately. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support in principle for same reasons as <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b>. Field section seems overly complex; will change to support when issues are resolved. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Joseph. It's now two years since we managed to get 2020 PGA Championship over the line, but it seems no lessons have been learned from that, the old poor article structure has been revived. Unless this is addressed, it won't be possible to post any golf results to ITN, which is a pity. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly support I find absolutely nothing wrong with the article, and I wouldn't change a thing. It's not worth it to ruin the article just to satisfy people who couldn't tell a golf ball from a hockey puck. If the field section is the only complaint, then look at the Premier League article that was just posted. It has tables all over the page. The Stanley Cup final page every year has complete rosters. What's the difference between those and the field section on a golf page? In my opinion, this should have been posted already. &mdash; Compy90 (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the field section is the only complaint, then look at the Premier League article that was just posted. It has tables all over the page.: One criticism above was the confusion over the numbers in parentheses. It doesn't seem to be a general objection to tables.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference for me between the Premier League/Stanley Cup article and this is that a) the prose about the matches comes first before the tables about roster/stadiums/field etc. and b) that the tables are easy to parse and not overly long. If you want to put Field as the second section of the article, it should not take up 2 pages of space on a standard desktop monitor.Chaosquo (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not worth it to ruin the article just to satisfy people who couldn't tell a golf ball from a hockey puck. the point of an encyclopedia is so that people can learn and understand things. That article, particularly the complicated field section, don't allow this. I and many others will understand how golf works, but not have a clue about what on earth that complicated field section means. This isn't golf Fandom/Wikia site, the articles should be understandable by people who aren't just golf fanatic fans. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose will support if the unwieldy Field section is condensed as per 2020 PGA Championship. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Man City win the Premier League

 * Support altblurb ITNR recurring event, albeit I feel my altblurb is better-worded. Details regarding the circumstances of the win are better-suited for the article. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a cn tag, and there doesn't seem to be anything citing the stadium and location section.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all in the PL handbook, I added a cite to the top of the table. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose tables upon tables upon tables, all prose in the lead and none in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insignificant 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the EPL is on ITN/R, the community has already deemed it significant enough to post if quality is sufficient, and so this !vote is invalid. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s an ITNR recurring event. The Kip (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure I get the oppose comments, the article is the standard format it has been for years and has normally gets in an ITN blurb. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , there's a big difference between last years article, which was posted, and this years. See 2020–21 Premier League. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Each article is different, I can understand you want to see more prose, that can be done, however this is just looking for a simple statement and not so much the article nomination. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally said "the article is the standard format it has been for years" then you say "each article is different". Looking at 2020–21 Premier League it's obvious your first statement isn't right. There's no way this is ready for the main page. AusLondonder (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality Article is merely tables upon tables. Prose is needed in order for this to qualify for the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not ready for the main page. Not even close. AusLondonder (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is WP:ITN/R but this article is far from the quality standards required for a ITN blurb.  Mario Jump  83!  08:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, The article is of a good standard in my view, I really feel the oppose comments above are now out of date. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article is not just table heavy, the tables contain promotional material like "Kit manufacturer, Shirt sponsor (chest), Shirt sponsor (sleeve) ..." It is our policy that "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising..."  Note also the big slogans in the proposed lead picture: "Mastercard ... Etihad Airways"! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The season articles contain that information because the kits change every season and people might want to identify the shirts. It's borderline impossible to get a shot of a footballer of this level on a pitch without some logo in the shot. We'd have to remove a lot of pictures from football bios if this is to be our stance... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sport isn't serious or significant compared to monkeypox, Scandinavian neutrality, space vehicles and the other stories that we're not running. We're an encyclopedia, not the sports pages, you see.  But it's still possible to show photos without excessive spam – see below. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your individual ideas on significance, the Premier League is listed in ITNR recurring events. It's already been deemed significant enough. The Kip (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, summary is a bit slanted towards the end of the season, but it definitely no longer applies that the article is just tables. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh and I favour the altblurb - keep it simple. If blurb1 is posted at least replace the emdash with an endash. Neutral on the relevance of the pic of Kevin the Brain. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know the ginger stinger is (probably) the best player in the world, but I'm not sure even he can take most of the blurb credit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - there seems to be sufficient prose. The suggestion that we cant have a photo of a footballer if he's wearing a sponsored shirt is utterly bizarre - as noted that would mean we basically couldn't have any photos of footballers actually playing football any more recently than about 1982...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. For example, (right) is the photo we posted for the Superbowl earlier this year.  The player has the name of his team and the league logo on his shirt and that seems reasonably relevant.  But there's no sponsorship spam on his chest, let alone his shirtsleeves.  If other leagues turn their sport into a spamfest then I suppose their articles might mention this but we shouldn't give them gratuitous exposure on the main page.  As an encyclopedia, we have standards, you see. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a perfectly good image that we can use for De Buryne that doesn't include any advertising: File:Kevin_De_Bruyne_201807091.jpg – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would a team photo not be much preferred? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes if one is freely available, but I suspect it isn't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me personally but I can imagine it would to most. I personally don't see a problem with the sponsoring of File:2021-12-07_Fußball,_Männer,_UEFA_Champions_League,_RB_Leipzig_-_Manchester_City_FC_1DX_2782_by_Stepro.jpg but your mileage may vary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficient prose.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this article has enough information for this ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb - notable event. GiantSnowman 18:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article now meets quality standards, and this is ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment why has the map showing team locations been made so small compared to last year (2020–21 Premier League) and previous years? Harder to see. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure why. I've increased to the same size as last year. The Kip (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - a photo of a soccer match in the article would be nice - but nothing is jumping out at me on the Commons. Article is significantly improved with prose. Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's tricky to get "a photo of a soccer match". And it would be difficult to decide which match and which moment. Maybe someone's got one of the pitch invasion that happened afterwards! I still suggest that a picture of the team, perhaps during the city victory parade, would be best (but yes Commons addition seems unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone with accredited access are contractually bound in such a way they almost certainly can't release the photo on a free licence. Anyone not accreditated taking a photo from the spectator stand is technically in breach of the terms and conditions of the tickets/ground. -- KTC (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Someone standing in the streets of Manchester as the bus drove past, or who was at the final venue, was free to take as many photos as they liked. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Particularly if we are talking a free image, any corporate logos should be present only on a de minimus approach. If one took a photo of a scoreboard where ads were predominate, that would be a problem, while a shot of a player in the foreground that happens to include an obscured version of the scoreboard would be fine. Samd would apply to uniform markings. M asem (t) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Te McMinimus? Didn't he play for Derby County?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per, a comprehensive article which even covers sponsorship deals, which are a fundamental aspect of modern sports. Thanks! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support, no brainer, one of the biggest sporting events of the year definitely deserves a mention.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now a few citations still needed, and I think some prose summary for what happened in the season prior to the final day, the twists and turns, just a paragraph or two should do it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event, and article is ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and marked Ready. No citations needed, prose is enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 United States infant formula shortage

 * Support This infant shortage is gaining global coverage plus its rare for this to happen to one of the richest countries in the world. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per TDKR Chicago. Also some interesting angles around regulation, de-regulation and corporate consolidation. The article is also in good shape and a welcome change from the cookie-cutter disaster stubs we frequently post. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposing for the third time, and preparing for a fourth. For the same reasons that I stated few days ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * friendly reminder: international coverage ≠ notability _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that reason amounted to "it's US-only news", to which I can only point back to points 2 and 3 above. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank God there are other requirements that must be met and, in this case, this news item doesn't meet them.Are we going to include all strictly local news just because of this rule you mention? Please... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It actually meets every one of the criteria in the guideline. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 21:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - it's now been in the international news for multiple news cycles (i.e., it's significant per RS) and the article is of sufficient quality. It meets the criteria to be posted. Levivich 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same reasons as before, Although there is more coverage than there has been a week ago, it's just not very notable with everything else that's going on right now. 4iamking (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A week ago, I blew your claim of insufficient coverage out of the water. The coverage then was enormous and has only increased since. I understand you have a right to oppose a nomination for any reason, good or bad. In this case, bad. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It wasn't notable then. It isn't notable now. A massively publicized flight doesn't change anything.--WaltCip- (talk)  22:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good looking article, which is our primary purpose. Yes, there are other things "going on right now" but our guidelines wisely note that nominations should be considered only on their own weight. Likewise, all news is local news. All four stories currently posted are local to a single country. All have some degree of foreign interest, but are of primary interest to domestic audiences. This is why such arguments are specifically precluded.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we're currently in the midst of a global food shortage. This is at best one facet of that much bigger news item. Banedon (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Both its causes and its effects are quite unique and separate from other current shortages, as the article makes clear. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 06:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still waiting on that starvation/innovation angle I couldn't see this flying without the first time it came back. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your standard that nothing is news until it kills someone? I'm sorry the parents haven't obliged you yet. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 13:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad many more babies aren't starving and no experimental formula came of this. But yeah, either of those would have been more newsworthy than a country importing something it doesn't produce enough of domestically. Almost nothing manmade is more common and mundane than international trade. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support high quality article, which does an excellent job of capturing the complex web of causation (goes beyond COVID shortages - although they are a factor) and the international response. Regarding the argument that the article is missing that "starvation/innovation angle" - at least 2 children have died due to the bacterial infection that lead to the recall in February, the article mentions at least 6 children hospitalized due to the shortage (improper homemade formula, complications from switching formulas, requirements of specialized formulas that aren't available...) and there are other children not specifically captured in the article, who have been hospitalized for similar reasons.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 13:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a very good article, but in the end I don't see how the event differs from any other food shortage in the world - some of which are far more serious than this - other than it has received far more publicity because it happened in a first world country. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is clear about how it differs: for one, unlike every other food product, formula often has no acceptable substitute. And the fact that such a thing is happening in a first world country (a country, in fact, that largely believes it has the highest standard of living in the world) is part of what makes it so newsworthy. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - a major event with worldwide reprecussions. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose again. America being America again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means, unless its that you oppose all stories that happen in the US. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you replying to everyone who disagrees with you? That's WP:BADGER territory dude. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BADGER: "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine". I'm not worried. I'm pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments for the closer's benefit; it's entirely up to you whether you want to address that weakness. I'm invoking WP:MWD here. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank god for that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've seen a couple of recent news reports in Canada - and there is no mention of shortages in Canada. I see some lower profile reports of some types being unavailable here - but it's a very different supply chain - with a lot of Canadian manufacturing. Also breastfeeding rates are much higher here. I don't see that it should be ITN because of Canadian issues. Either way, it's all very local. Supply chain issues however are global - everything from silicon chips (and everything that uses them) to furniture; there was quite a couch shortage here a few months ago. Perhaps supply chain issues could be Ongoing? But I don't think we need an article for just one item in a one place. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Buffalo shooting currently on ITN was far more local than this, and directly affected far fewer people, so the problem must be something other than just localism. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 20:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which I also thought was too local. There's barely been mention of it in days. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nfitz - are you suggesting 2022 food crises should be in Ongoing? Or perhaps 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis? I think those would both face push back as being related to the COVID 19 pandemic and/or the Russia/Ukraine war which are already in ongoing.  However I think the Abbot recall makes the infant formula issue distinct enough that it's not adequately covered by the presence of COVID 19 pandemic in ongoing already. @Swpb, the baby formula shortage should probably be mentioned in 2022 food crises with a link back to 2022 United States infant formula shortage, as 2022 food crises really is rather sparse. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea; done. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis (I haven't looked closely at the article - didn't it start in 2020 - at least with silicon chips and LED screens?); I'd think the food issues were a subset of the bigger issues causing supply chain issues. Though perhaps that's a different debate. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The formula shortage has nothing to do with the global supply crisis (which is more driven by the covid wave in China). The formula crisis is due to one of three suppliers in the US have to shut down production after a FDA review on plant conditions, and the market inelasticity of the other two to be able to simply up production to meet demand. M asem (t) 21:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The global supply crisis is partly driven by the same drive for extreme profit that have destabilized production of infant formula, and put more eggs in less baskets. Still, if it's that local, then even less notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're arguing they're the same story because they both involve capitalism? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not per se. And the more I look at 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis, the more it seems the article is very narrow in scope. Supply chain issues started to break down here before months before Covid with strikes at ports, railway by First Nations protesters, and even Brexit. And yet that even article notes that The supply chain crisis is a major contributing factor in the 2022 United States infant formula shortage. Foreign media says similar. Media reports here blame sunflower oil shortages. Another factor would be increased global protectionism. There's literally a massive infant formula manufacturing facility on the Canada/US border, that is 100% for export, but exports nothing to the USA because of US protectionism. That being said (and increasingly off-topic and TLDR), I do note there was an ITN in 2008 for the 2008 Chinese milk scandal that lead to the construction of that baby formula plant near the Canada/US border. Nfitz (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Yes, it has been in the news, especially in the U.S., and politicos have promised action, but general significance in the context of horrendous int'l.events seems lacking, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Rosemary Radford Ruether

 * The problem tags Third-party, POV & Lacking ISBN need to be addressed before this nom can proceed. And time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colin Cantwell

 * Support Solidly sourced and article quality is good enough. Could have some references work, per nom.  Mario Jump  83!  07:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of {cn} tags in the Personal Life section that need to be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC) I've added a third {cn} tag for the subject's date of birth. --PFHLai (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up those CN tags. NOW: Is the long enough? Is it cited?  Is it generally issue free?  I'd say that this wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Achmad Yurianto

 * Weak support Article is fine. Nothing less, nothing more. Could use some work as per nom. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well known within my country, especially during the first months of the pandemic in Indonesia. Still needs some copyediting per nom.  Mario Jump  83!  07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article reads well and has plenty of references, definitely ready for RD. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Australia election

 * Wait until we know whether Labor will win a majority. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until we are 100 percent sure that the Labor party wins a majority. Additional prose in the 'Results' section would also be helpful. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Vote counting in the close seats will take several days, and possibly weeks. It's possible, maybe even likely, that it would be considered by some editors to be a 'stale' story in early/mid/late June once the final seat count is known. It would be best to post the item now, while it is actually in the news. Chrisclear (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - the significance is that the election happened, not what its result is. Levivich 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support important election 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as orange tagged section in target article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed sourcing issues TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality In addition to the orange tag, I have seen many an election article before but never one where the "Results" section is ahead of the "Background" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed sourcing issues TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with picture of Albanese This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - current PM has conceded, and Labour is leading or elected in 79 of the 151 seats. No reason to wait, other than quality. Nfitz (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Albo is expected to be sworn in on Monday 23rd of May. I say we just wait until he's sworn in, and change the blurb appropriately.  Mel ma nn   22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't typically wait for the formal swearing in/inauguration. It's the election that is news, not the formalities. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until Albo is sworn in, and strong support for it added on the main page thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This position is in violation of WP:ITN/R, and so should be ignored. Steelkamp (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait We still don't have final totals. Bit of a premature nom. The Kip (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Until we figure out if its a majority or minority, though we don't need to wait for him to be sworn in. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Morrison has conceded defeat . --M asem (t) 05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - against ridiculous, wilfully ignorant opposition! Counting in Australian elections and knowing the precise number of seats can take weeks or months. But the former Prime Minister has conceded the election. The major media outlets have declared the result. (Even Rupert Murdoch's Sky News!) THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!!! 05:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait The Australian Electoral Commission haven't even declared any seats yet, with postal votes and pre-poll votes yet to be counted there is still plenty of room for movement. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't declare seats until all the postals are in, and we have never waited for 'dead rubbers' to be finalised Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So we should wait until June to put this on ITN? Albo would have been sworn in long before that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until May 23, the swearing in comes close enough on the heels of the election that we can bundle the results and their formalization into a single post. BD2412  T 05:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. We won't have formal results for probably a month. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This position is in violation of WP:ITN/R, and so should be ignored. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Morrison has already resigned as leader of the Liberal Party; Albanese has already declared victory. Yes, there is still uncertainty around whether Labor will govern with a majority or minority government HOWEVER it is almost certain that Labor will form government. I don't recall Wikipedia ITN ever waiting for every seat to be decided, let alone wait for the formal swearing-in. JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The target article is the federal election for this blurb, so waiting for 23 May does not make sense. Morrison also conceded and I believe when Biden was elected a blurb was posted when he was declared victor not on his inauguration on 20 January. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending quality ALP has won, we have never waited for all subdivisions to be confirmed if the fact that a victory has occurred is known Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed sourcing issues. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: All of the people saying we should wait to see whether it is a majority or minority/wait for when Albo is sworn should be ignored, as the actual election is on WP:ITN/R, not the swearing in. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. The target article is the 2022 federal election not Albo, so waiting until 23 May makes no sense. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I love all these "Albos" Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Agreed, postal votes will be accepted until Friday 3 June, so the final seat count won't be known for quite some time. Chrisclear (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not advocate for ignoring the voices of our contributors. We are a community ruled by consensus. ITN/R is not the law, it is a guideline. Election blurbs are routinely held for greater clarity, and suggestions for a negligible delay to improve the blurb are valid. I disagree, and Support posting now, but your efforts here are uncivil.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tweak and post replace "a majority of seats in", which is likely by uncertain and won't be confirmed for several days, with "the" which is uncontroversial given the ALP is going to be sworn into government tomorrow (23 May) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted (with "the" instead of "a", which can be changed if/when they win a 76th seat). Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted too soon I believe this is the first election to be included in Main Page in which the results section has no prose... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section? Chrisclear (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In each of the elections that have been proposed for inclusion in MP, the results section has been required to have a minimum of prose, as a matter of article quality. The Australian ones should be no exception. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Can you advise who (apart from you) has imposed this requirement "to have a minimum of prose"? And I will ask again, what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section? Chrisclear (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any articles that are featured or target links (those in bolded text for the most part) on the Main Page (including TFA and DYK) are expected to represent the best of what WP articles can be. Articles consisting only of tables does not meet that quality baseline. --M asem (t) 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can do the exercise yourself, by taking a look at the nominations on elections from, at least, last month. And you will see that I'm not the only one who demands it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully those demands will subside. Repeating information in prose when it's already in a table doesn't strike me as increasing article quality. Levivich 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Summarizing the table details for the highlights is both more appropriate to an encyclopedic format as well as improving accessibility. There is also sometimes details that prose can cover that tables cannot necessary show. --M asem (t) 15:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what the lead does: provide a prose summary. The Results section doesn't need to repeat that with another prose summary. It goes back to the question, "what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section?" (Or in the lead, I would add.) I'd say it's all covered in the tables and summarized in the lead. The lack of prose in the Results section is not a reason not to post an article on ITN. Levivich 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede should be summarizing the body of the article, so if there's no prose in the body, that's a problem. I mean, this is why we want LEDECITE for, for the body to be where references are located and keeping the lede clean of citations outside of direct quotes. Also, keep in mind people may jump directly to that section, and thus why even a short summary of the table itself should be present. --M asem (t) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just threw in two sentences of minimal prose above the table of results. Please feel free to update and expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Update I think the wording should be changed from "majority" to the slightly less specific "most" because it's clear Labor have won, but not necessarily a majority, which has more implications. The official |Australian Electoral Commission updates currently suggest 75 of 151 (1 away from a majority). — Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. It’s not currently known whether it’s a majority. Steelkamp (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a majority, the question is only whether it's a relative majority or absolute majority (and no, not "plurality", because this is Australia, not USA/Canada). Regards So  Why  18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, no-one ever says the words "relative majority" when talking about Australian elections. Whenever someone says "majority", they are referring to an absolute majority. Steelkamp (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The majority" was correct. It is not equivalent to "a majority".  "The majority" means "the most", not a plurality. Still, I see someone's changed it now - whatever. Black Kite (talk)
 * Update For those who thought swearing in was a significant moment in time, that has now happened. It was a stupid requirement anyway. I cannot imagine us ever delaying the posting of the election of a new US President from November to January. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That last part really sounds like some silly America-centric remark. The point is that this isn't the US and that the delay between the election and the swearing-in is so much shorter that waiting the extra few hours (which might have allowed for some more suitable prose to be written for the results section, prose which is still lacking) wouldn't have been a bad idea... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For every country, we post when the results are reported, not when the person is inaugurated, which often takes a few days or a week (and much longer for US). If someone wants to change that, they should discuss it at WT:ITN, because it would be a change to the usual process of posting these elections. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that "which often takes a few days or a week" is clearly not the case with Australia - in fact, the guy was sworn in before we even had the full results, which just shows how the comparison with other countries is in this case inaccurate; and how following process for the sake of process is not particularly a good way to do things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Albanese was not sworn in as the next Prime Minister as the result of the election. He was sworn in as an interim Prime Minister until such time as the election result is finalised and the true winner is known (it will almost certainly be Albanese, but it is not yet certain that he will be able to form government). This was an exceptional case, because of the Quad Summit in Tokyo beginning on Tuesday. Outgoing PM Scott Morrison (who is still PM until a new PM is sworn in) could not attend meaningfully as by convention as the outgoing PM he would be unable to commit Australia to any decisions, so he resigned after the election trends became apparent, forcing the Governor-General to appoint an interim PM until such time as the election is finalised. This is all a technicality, but speaking in technical terms, Albanese has not been sworn in as "the new PM who won the election", he is currently only an interim PM. dmmaus (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The ABC says nothing about it being interim. It says it was done quickly because of the Tokyo summit, but also that the Governor-General was convinced Labor was able to form government. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One could also take it as an anti-US special treatment comment. Anyhoo, AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * HiLo is prone to bemoaning putative U.S.-centricity on ITN/C. I wouldn't worry about it too much. WaltCip- (talk)  14:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I love you too. It's probably worth pointing out that, for most informed Australians, the result of an election are accepted as clear when Antony Green says they are. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs to update to something indicating Labor has won the election, like, "... and Anthony Albanese becomes Prime Minister of Australia". "Wins the most seats" is too technical and should be removed if there is not enough space; the party winning the most seats does not always form government. Adpete (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox
* That’s what everyone thought when COVID started as a minor illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.31.219 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait 88 cases so far and 0 deaths. Wait until the outbreak is more consequential, then I feel like it could be posted in ITN Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems inevitable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom but... really? If this was smallpox I'd be a bit more concerned. This is premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Under 100 cases worldwide and with a rather low transmission rate is not a need to rush to post anything, but that doesn't rule out a future psoting if it gets worse. --M asem (t) 03:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given just the news over the last few days, I would support simply adding this to Ongoing without a blurb. Eg Biden spoke to it this morning saying everyone should be aware of this as it has a possibility of being more severe if people are too lax. Or at the least, making sure we fast track to Ongoing if this still is getting worse in the next month or so. --M asem (t) 14:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Ad Orientum and Masem. Jusdafax (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment weird, this update suggests more than a thousand cases and 58 deaths worldwide. Lethality of 4.5% is way above COVID.  Perhaps we need to just update the facts.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, this is already serious and is killing dozens of people. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's counting the places where it killing dozens is already normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh? So people in DRC don't count.  I see. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd go there, and was edit conflicted clarifying. Of course they count. But endemics aren't the news here, the spread to the "first world" is. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing The geographical spread beyond Africa and worldwide news coverage are quite significant for ongoing at least. Brandmeistertalk  08:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per The Rambling Man’s reasoning above. This is already a serious thing in some countries, and absolutely nothing indicates that the news is about its spread to the “first world”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The blurb you're supporting is based on the BBC saying Infections have been confirmed in nine European countries, as well as the US, Canada and Australia. The Al Jazeera/AP piece is all about how different it is in "the West"/"developed countries". The target article only counts non-African cases, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We’re probably going to post a blurb that it has spread to a number of countries without specifying where those countries are located, so readers won’t immediately get that the story documents something affecting the “first world”. At the end, it’s completely irrelevant if the countries are in Europe, Africa or South America. The news is that a viral disease becomes more prevalent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can disguise the blurb all you want, but unless you rewrite the underlying article, readers will notice it seems to care more about a few dozen recent Westerners than hundreds of thousands of Africans over the decades eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Banedon (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. However, wait on ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom  HurricaneEdgar    12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – Per Orientum, Masem – An ugly development that bears watching, but it seems premature at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – per above. In my opinion, systematic bias seems strong here, as I am fairly sure that a similar endemic happened in the United States would get unanimous support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Shootings in the US do not get unanimous support. The baby formula shortage in the US did not get unanimous support. Levivich 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this is happening in the United States. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - premature. WHO has not declared a PHE, and as far as I can find out nobody has died in the European outbreak. Also, the article does not mention anything about the disease in Africa which I assume has far more impact. Juxlos (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Premature, and I'm pretty sure that as the "outbreak" is in Europe, systemic bias does not apply. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Premature, and I'm pretty sure that as the "outbreak" is in Europe, systemic bias does not apply. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - the spread of this rare disease outside of remote parts of Africa is significant as evidenced by it being front-page news worldwide. The article is of sufficient quality. Levivich 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - front page of a newspaper doesn't make it notable. This isn't a unique occurrence. Monkeypox outbreaks have been happening in the west for decades - we even have an article about the 2003 outbreak in the USA - where there were 0 deaths in 71 confirmed cases. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of an exaggeration. The one you linked to was the only outbreak in the West and all of those cases were the result of animal-to-human transmission. Not at all comparable to the current outbreak. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The WHO held an emergency meeting and I believe this is the first case of monkeypox spreading from country to country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not yet a significant enough outbreak. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. We have become oversensitized to the possibility of another pandemic, but a touch-transmitted disease like monkeypox will not be it. BD2412  T 05:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - What about 2022 hepatitis of unknown origin in children? - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  07:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Without a cause, that's more of a pattern people just happen to notice than an outbreak/epidemic/spread, so something to think about but not a suitable substitute. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike the monkeypox outbreak, it doesn't seem that outbreak became as big of a concern as this one, and most of the attention now is at monkeypox outbreak we're currently in.  Mario Jump  83!  08:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until/if WHO declares the outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support – Cases reported in 14 15 countries, including newly reported Israel and Switzerland. But risk termed "extremely low." – Sca (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Scaramouche33. This currently seems to be the worst kind of unnecessary tabloid scare-mongering (and, since the victims seem to be disproportionately gay men, it probably carries a real risk of leading to outbreaks of gay-bashing as well, a risk that can only be increased by a decision by us to give it unjustified publicity, and publicity that often stays on our front page long after it has left the front pages of other media). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ~200 cases in 12 countries in 23 days? No, not at all noteworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean it really only started to gain traction from last Wednesday, before May 18th it was only a few isolated cases in the UK. The suggested blurb is outdated now anyway since we are up to 16 countries (possibly 17 if the Argentinian case is confirmed). And if it is, that would mean the virus has spread to every continent (except Antartica) which is significant. 4iamking (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, until the outbreak becomes a significant enough concern – This outbreak is significant enough that it got some international attention, but this is quite premature as most of them aren't really concerned yet. Honestly, I'm afraid that this outbreak might spread into my country, but unless this outbreak's trajectory keeps going up and becoming a significant health risk worldwide that it becomes a real concern, then it is not enough for a blurb. Also a concern to note, per Tlhslobus, is the scaremongering from tabloids while most of the outbreak victims are disproportionately gay men. It could become a dangerous and undeserved publicity that should be avoided.  Mario Jump  83!  08:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose right now there's a small number of cases of monkeypox in a small number of countries. Most of the coverage of this is just fearmongering, and we shouldn't be doing that too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We're nowhere near the point where this would warrant an ongoing posting. Possibly if the casualty toll significantly increases.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – FWIW, WHO says monkeypox spread was caused by 'raves' in Spain and Belgium, and terms it a "formidable" challenge. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In a more recent report, WHO said it was "containable" and overall risk to the broader population is very low. That article also says Despite being the largest outbreak outside of Africa in 50 years, monkeypox does not spread easily between people and experts say the threat is not comparable to the coronavirus pandemic. That the event is getting as much news coverage in the West seems to be more about post-Covid anxiety than any real risk. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape, reliable news sources have provided adequate coverage to establish significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose,The outbreak is not significant. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is not for us to determine if this is fearmongering. Reliable sources are reporting it, it appears to be a big deal. Will it be the next COVID-19? Probably not, but this is notable enough to post on ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – getting disproportionate reporting in media in a post-COVID world, borderline tabloid levels of being overblown. Hardly a notable outbreak as of now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, global media attention on this spread makes it inevitable and pertinent.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: maybe it was premature at the time of nomination, but it seems significant enough now. It doesn't need to be as bad and widespread as COVID-19 to be included in ITN. MarioGom (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Mario's right, it only has to be worse and more widespread than the Eurovision Song Contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't judge ITN worthiness based on what's already posted there. The Eurovision Song Contest is WP:ITNR, so definitely notable for being posted. Monkeypox coverage is still a lot of scaremongering over a few cases, and we shouldn't be supporting that by copying it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise, we don't judge a lot of coverage by whether some readers might find it scarier than it has some unwritten right to be. You think massacre, protest and natural disaster stories don't intentionally turn it up for clicks? Fear is news. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 94 cases confirmed in the world. That's not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is on the basis that it has not become a worldwide pandemic as say COVID-19. Kampolama (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be a once-in-lifetime pandemic to make ITN? Sheesh, these COVID comparisons are ridic. Levivich 14:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has 94 cases in the whole world, less than most other diseases in the world.... It doesn't have to be COVID-levels of coverage, but it's nothing compared to other diseases right now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet our readers are reading about it, more than any other article yesterday. How many days has this been in the news? Why is Eurovision still listed a week later when we have more recent items, of more interest to readers, to post? What part of ITN criteria involves editors deciding how many cases a disease needs to have before it's posted on ITN? All of these questions are rhetorical. Levivich 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there are 230. And that's beside the thousands in West and Central Africa. I cannot stress this enough, Africa is far more humongous than it appears in mainstream Mercator maps (and the supposedly vast subarctic wilderness is getting smaller as we speak, Joe!) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This was the top read article yesterday and has had over a million readers lately. That's obviously because it's very much in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Outbreak is spreading and continues to make front page news. Beyond notable even if it isn't on the same scope as COVID. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Vaccines are already available for monkeypox.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because this is in the news, everywhere. The map needs updating but that's a detail. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very recent virus outbreak, even if it has cases worldwide, it is not notable enough. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd wait for WHO here as far as establishing notability. Let's not try to predict the next pandemic before it is a pandemic. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't think anyone is trying to predict a pandemic, its just what's in the news, and this is taking up a lot of oxygen. 4iamking (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Starliner docks to ISS

 * Oppose Similar to other superlative events, we usually don't post the second or beyond-type events. While this is Boeing's first attempt (compared to SpaceX), it really isn't much of a new accomplishment. --M asem (t) 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Might be a big deal for Boeing, but otherwise a footnote to the ISS story. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Currently only two spacecraft are able to deliver crew to the ISS; Soyuz and Dragon. The success of this flight changes this, reducing the reliance on Russia and the market dominance of SpaceX; this makes it a significant event that should be posted on ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Sca. This isn't receiving the sort of international, front-page coverage that would indicate sufficient significance to post at ITN. Levivich 15:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm interested as I'd not heard of this vehicle before. But the nomination describes it as "crewed" and it wasn't.  This was just one in a series of test flights and doesn't seem a major milestone. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I was looking at what we've done in the past for new crewed spacecraft. For Crew Dragon, the comparable 2019 test flight to the ISS wasn't in the news - but the first crewed flight (Crew Dragon Demo-2 in 2020), was in the news. On the other hand, NASA's new Orion (spacecraft) isn't due to have it's first crewed flight (Artemis 2) until 2024 - but it's already been ITN at least twice, with the 2009 launch of an uncrewed Orion prototype in the Ares I-X sub-orbital test flight, an also in the 2014 orbital Exploration Flight Test-1. I'd also be shocked if the planned August 2022 uncrewed test flight of Artemis 1 doesn't make ITN - thought given that it's an uncrewed capsule going into lunar orbit for the first time since Apollo 6 in 1968, and the first launch of NASA's massive Space Launch System. Given the failure of the 2019 Starliner Boeing Orbital Flight Test, it's a huge milestone for NASA and Boeing. But is it ITN? Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I was neutral above, because I couldn't see an ITN item for an uncrewed Dragon. However I just came across an 2012 ITNs for both the first Cargo Dragon flight to the ISS and SpaceX CRS-1. One could argue that the first uncrewed test of the Crewed version wasn't notable because by then they'd flown the Cargo version over 20 times - unlike Boeing that have never tried to dock anything to ISS before. Not surprisingly there was also an ITN for the 2015 SpaceX CRS-7 explosion. Inconsistently there was no ITN for the first flights of Cygnus (until the massive explosion in 2014) or ATV-001 in 2008, but there was one for HTV-1 in 2014. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Nfitz Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Nfitz, who makes a thoughtful case, and Billed Mammal. Jusdafax (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fourth crewed spacecraft to dock on the ISS doesn’t convince me at all. This may be a huge milestone for Boeing and an important event for NASA, but it’s definitely not groundbreaking in the history of space technology.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think, that it's the fourth type of crewed spacecraft to dock, that is the point. It's that it's the first docking of this type; mind you, given the other 3 types first flew in 1967, 1981, and 2019 - it's not like the category is flooded! Technically, this flight meets WP:ITNR of The launch of space stations or installation of new major components thereof. At the same time, the first crewed flight might be a better target. I am surprised the previous Boeing Orbital Flight Test wasn't posted, as it met the ITNR of Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article - although no one brought that up WP:In the news/Candidates/December 2019. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to tweak the blurb so that it documents what the first docking of its type really means.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the blurb - I think it's the nominator's comment that bends that way, . Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that "it's the first docking of this type", but that's nowhere clearly explained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski; I would perhaps support an ITN for Boeing-CFT, when it actually flies crew, as it then signifies that Boeing is ready to fulfill its commercial contract with NASA. Even then, it's not that big of news; the main story is with America achieving the independent ability to launch astronauts, which it already has before Starliner flew successfully. Lyrim (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Hardly noteworthy in the history of the ISS, this isn't even getting that much media attention. 4iamking (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not particularly noteworthy. Not the first flight to the ISS and woln't be the last. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aroha Reriti-Crofts

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough to qualify (400+ words), and there are no concerns regarding its formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig didn't find any problems. --PFHLai (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Angell

 * Support American baseball writer, dead at 101. Short story and solidly sourced. Maybe Photo RD? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per InedibleHulk. Good job on the cleanup. Jusdafax (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Susan Roces

 * Support Article has reliable sources. Vida0007 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Wait as per InedibleHulk's comment below; minor changes should be done, especially with her filmography. Vida0007 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Filmography hasn't reliable sources and hardly enough corroborating Wikilinks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the lack of sources in the Filmography section, the orange tag asking for an expansion in the Career section needs to be addressed, too, before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944)

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's more than long enough to qualify (700+ words), and there are no concerns regarding its formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig has found no problems. --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Donald K. Ross (author)

 * I'm seeing news of his death as early as the 15th. --M asem (t) 01:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of {cn} tags across the prose. Please add more REFs. Furthermore, I wonder why the subject is considered as an author in the disambiguation. The section on his books has only one sentence. Please expand on his career as an author, if appropriate. Or perhaps move the page -- "(lawyer)" may be more appropriate. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Or "(lobbyist)". --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of moving the article to his full name so no disambiguation would be needed. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. That may work, too. --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

(Attention needed) Sri Lanka Debt Default

 * Article needs updating to explain this is after an initial 30 day grave period that started in April to try to pay off debt before becoming fully in fault. Articke as stands puts the default in April and appears yo make this stale. But the event is going past that 30 day window. --M asem (t) 14:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support in principle. Major event, but article needs updating. The Kip (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom Googleguy007 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis should be added in ongoing issues. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support adding one of the following to ongoing regardless of decision on this blurb: 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis, 2022 Sri Lankan protests, or 2019-present Sri Lankan economic crisis depending on which of these related events we decide makes the most sense. Also support blurbing this as suggested above, at least in principle (don’t know about article quality). 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:5D1C:75DB:C30C:6BA4 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual but pretty notable news with major implications for the country, its creditors and trade partners.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A rare event and I believe Sri Lanka is now the first Asian-Pacific country to do this so there's a blurbworthy event (perhaps worth a mention?) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be added to ongoing issues as this has been going on for quite a while. Didn't Sri Lanka default on some debt in April as well? https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/sri-lanka-announces-defaulting-on-all-its-external-debt-news-agency-afp-2880723 https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka-default-external-debts-b2056248.html Haris920 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * April default was called soft default (the debtor announces their intention of defaulting prior to the due date) and received a 30 day grace period. Now the grace period expired the country is hard defaulting. <b style="color: SteelBlue;">Chanaka L</b> ( talk ) 03:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this aspect still needs to be added to the article to explain why this is not the same thing as the prior April announcement. --M asem (t) 04:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, makes sense Haris920 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reword Focussing only on the debt seems too narrow and mercenary. The target article is about their economic crisis and there seem to be several aspects to this, not just the debt issue.  For example, their agriculture has collapsed because of a government ban on agrichemicals, forcing farmers to become organic.  The production of rice and tea is down dramatically and this is one reason for the crisis.  So, we should say something of this rather than suggesting that all we care about is getting paid. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Be it a financial crisis or an election we don't like, you can't fit all the context into the blurb -- that's what the article is for. If the default is in the news, that ought be in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The target article is called "Sri Lankan economic crisis" not "Sri Lankan debt default". If it seems like there's too much happening to fit into a blurb then maybe we should put it into Ongoing.  That way, we've got the protests, political changes and other consequences covered too.  Others have made similar points above too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The target article is called "Sri Lankan economic crisis" not "Sri Lankan debt default". If it seems like there's too much happening to fit into a blurb then maybe we should put it into Ongoing.  That way, we've got the protests, political changes and other consequences covered too.  Others have made similar points above too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb – It's a complex developing situation. On Fri. govt. (per AP) closed schools & cut back ops. But neutral re Ongoing. -- Sca (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2 to reflect this. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As ongoing. The Alt2 version is too long, as has been mentioned, there is that whole chain of events that basically can be summed up as criminal mismanagement. The default is only a cherry on top of the cake. We'll see unrest for quite some time, so it's better for the people to know about the whole shit happening there. But there's that maintenance tag that would best go before posting. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb3 much shorter Abcmaxx (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still need to point out the article is not properly updated to explain the more recent defaulting after the 30-day soft period. This needs to be clear before we can post. --M asem (t) 16:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Put forward slightly re-worded 4th altblurb. The Kip (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cathal Coughlan

 * Support, I trust that you'll find a ref for the bands others formed, which isn't even necessary for his bio. Just for formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you have a sentence/para in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Have spent a bit updating and referencing. Its a sad day, and as a coi declaration, he was a major musical influence who personally, the one time I met him aged 15, got me off oi! punk and onto Joy Division and The Fall. Nonetheless, I believe the article is neutral (eg I love Fatima Mansions almost as much as I hate Microdisney, but it doesn't come through). Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Aw f*ck. I hadn't even seen this.  Random fact: I once had my glasses broken by a random female stagediver landing on my head during "Blues for Ceaucescu". But yeah, the article is good. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, Nirvana supported Sonic Youth in Cork in the summer before they were famous, but the gig we are all proudest to have been at was the Mansions touring Blues For Ceausescu in june 1992. It was bone crunching, never seen anything like that perfect blend of angst and noise since. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Resetarits

 * Support. Looks fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Grimes2 (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagged as ready (before this disappears into the void). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Neuwirth

 * Support Meets minimum standards for depth; referenced.  Spencer T• C 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Is the article long enough? Is it cited?  Is it issue free?  This article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Murphy (author)

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough to qualify (650+ words), with no glaring gaps in coverage, no concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mpho Moerane

 * Weak Support Article is fine. Still could use a DOB, if anyone can find it. Article is barely long enough but has reasonable sources for an article this size. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Found something which works for that (by my understanding of WP:CALC). Thankfully it just barely sneaks in before the paywall hits, ha. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You could post this yourself first instead of the others... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting my own nom on MainPage? That would be a conflict of interest. IMO, nominators and content contributors should not be the same person as the poster (postor?). --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good thing to apply IAR for this rather than seeing this article getting swallowed by the ITN void. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe in due process. IAR can still be used in "the ITN void" :-) --PFHLai (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO

 * Oppose Sweden's end of its 200-year neutrality has some merit, albeit violated two months ago when they agreed to send military support to Ukraine, but this is just a process of applying and not joining NATO. Let's wait until they officially become members and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We had a nom for that which snow closed. And we will have many that say at the point of joining that it's old news. Most of us think this thing is worth posting but only question when. I think we should have a discussion about that preference over on the talk page, rather than having different editors shoot down each stage.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The main problem here is that "applying" doesn't mean "joining", and that's the reason why we post at the moment of joining. In this particular case, the risk is that Turkey may veto their applications because Finland and Sweden allegedly support the Kurdish military groups (Reuters).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that it is too early to post now. My only question is which specific step is the best place to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait This is the third time this has been nominated in as many days, and the story hasn't significantly changed since it was closed the prior two times. When NATO accepts the new members, we have a meaningful story.  Applying for entry is not a sufficient landmark here.  Can we please read the already declined nominations and stop trying to beat this dead horse.  Let's wait until they are actually accepted as new NATO members.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At which point the argument will be "old news! They applied months ago!". 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I did read the prior nominations, thanks. As I note above, this is no longer hypothetical, or a mere announcement of intent. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first was closed with Too early to tell, we should revisit this when they actually send it in, IF they send it in. and the second was closed with There is clear SNOW consensus that the intent to join is not going to be the point of coverage. Whether we post when they fully apply and/or when NATO approves is a different matter, but this is clearly not going to be posted from the numerous waits.
 * Reading the declined nominations supports opening a new one now, and the story has significantly changed since then - Sweden and Finland have sent in their formal applications. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait It should only be when NATO has accepted their membership, though I do agree these countries finally taking sides is of interest, but that arguably is all under the Russia-Ukraine ongoing. As Turkey has expressed oppossion so far, we should wait until the NATO acceptance is done. --M asem (t) 12:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If as being claimed that the story is Finland and Sweden "abandoning" neutrality, that's a side effect of the Ukraine-Russia war, and thus should already be covered by that ongoing. Both countries have already taken a side (with Ukraine) in some type of capacity, so their neutrality was already abandoned. --M asem (t) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until if/when they actually get accepted, as that would be the ITN worthy event. Applying to something isn't notable enough for ITN< especially when Turkey have implied they'll veto the applications. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, because as of now this is still WP:CRYSTAL. Even if they apply, it doesn't really change the state of geopolitics that much until they get accepted, if they get accepted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not crystal because the story here is that they applied. Nothing more, nothing less than that. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question If we don't post now, then we should determine what we will post, because there's guaranteed to be separate nominations for the Accession Protocol, for the last NATO member ratifying, for the treaty coming into force...Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a significant geopolitical change, marking Finland and Sweden abandoning neutrality - even Turkey vetoing their application will not change this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this, I also support the original blurb per 4iamking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per BilledMammal. The newsworthy event is the decision to abandon a decade-long/centuries-long stance of pact-neutrality in favor of applying to join NATO. This alone has let to a lot of news coverage all over the world, with my sources explicitly highlighting the historicity of the application itself e.g.
 * WSJ: "Finland, Sweden Apply for NATO Membership, Breaking Decades of Neutrality"
 * Politico: "The Nordic countries’ move represents one of the most significant shakeups of Europe’s security architecture in decades."
 * AP: "The move is one of the biggest geopolitical ramifications of the war"
 * Whether or not the application is accepted, is irrelevant. Those who argue to wait or see a CRYSTAL violation fail to take into account that it would only be a CRYSTAL violation if the blurb was "Sweden and Finland will join NATO". No one is proposing this though. Even if Turkey were ultimately successful in blocking their membership, the decision to apply itself will still have been newsworthy. There is no rule that an application and an acceptance can't both be newsworthy if they are about different things. Regards So  Why  13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, I am in agreement with SoWhy that the most newsworthy aspect is the application to join NATO. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm convinced. Even the intention to do so greatly changes the geopolitical landscape in Europe. Neutrality as a principle is beginning to fade from existence.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Still premature. It remains to be seen whether Turkey will play the shill for Putinia. And Hungary lurks (surprise!) as a possible foil. Applying changes nothing. There's many a slip. Realistically, membership may happen later this year. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support thanks to SoWhy, and also as there are myriad other milestones that can be used, debated, and posted/rejected. Neutrality in Scandinavia is over, and Russia/Turkey's reactions are noteworthy enough. As pointed out by Scaramouche33, for those who don't want to post this event, what do we post instead? 66.209.246.6 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Something newsworthy. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For not being newsworthy, this sure is in a lot of news outlets. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they can't just re-run yesterday's nooz, that would be to much of a snooze. But in this case it's not news anyone can use. -- Sca (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be of concern to Russia's apparatchiki, as they keep threatening nuclear war to Sweden and Finland for daring to consider joining. WaltCip- (talk)  15:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hot air. -- Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what people thought about Russia's threats to invade Ukraine as well. How wrong we were. WaltCip- (talk)  17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * stop it, you're making me snooz..... zzzzz Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No, ending neutrality is NOT worthy because it's arbitrary and subjective. No, let's wait until they are accepted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain how ending 200 years of neutrality is "arbitrary and subjective". It's not arbitrary, both nations have specific reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what constitutes neutrality. Almost all of these self-proclaimed "neutral" countries send military aid. Sweden is in the EU and they are sending military aid to Ukraine. So yeah, it's kinda debatable as to whether or not they are really neutral. What is not debatable is if they are or are not in NATO, which also promises to have a much bigger impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources consistently described them as neutral. Per WP:V and WP:OR, that means we need to consider them to be formerly neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then by that definition I don't think simply ending "neutrality" is ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support That the process is officially started and underway is underway is Newsworthy and worth a mention on ITN, we are past the stage of statements of intention that wouldnt be. 4iamking (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Too early to tell, there are (from SE's and FI's perspective) some rather annoying roadblocks (Turkey, Croatia, probably Hungary), and you know, we have the (related case) of Turkey applying to the EU in 1987 and not being in the EU in 2022, with the negotiations sort of started only in 2004 but then suspended after the attempt of a coup d'etat in 2016. We also have Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania in negotiations with the EU, and they've long applied for the status, but well, they aren't part of the EU, either. In any case, the application itself is not notable. The negotiations themselves aren't. But accession is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the news is that the application process is officially underway, not that they will be admitted (though those road blocks look extremely unlikely to actually block it). 4iamking (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this, I support the original blurb. I don't like ALT 1 & 2 because if Sweden as an EU nation (and Article 47.2 Existing) was truly neutral before is up for debate, and I don't like Alt 2/3 because its unnecessarily leading. 4iamking (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now is the time to post, when it's actually in the news. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this step is a pretty big deal in international relations. I agree with several commenters above that it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note the countries applied. While "Sweden and Finland join NATO" will also be worthy of ITN if/when it happens some time in the next year or so, I don't see how that negates this also being highly newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support the act of application alone is a huge deal, perhaps as big (if not more) than formal membership itself, especially as it has been said Article 5 won't immediately apply on date of joining and their application is basically guaranteed to be successful. Certainly newsworthy. And regardless of acceptance, I agree with SoWhy that applying is noteworthy in itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Prefer alt blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I empathize with the wait crowd, but due to the Russia Derangement Syndrome this is "in the news" now, and their admittance is a forgone conclusion. Should it be posted now, it should not be posted again when formally admitted. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the only other postable aspect here would be the last country to approve. I don't think the formal accession ceremony would merit posting or the date effective. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be posted one time. If the last approval is the milestone then wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it can be posted twice, once now that it's officially started, and once they actually get admitted. both are equally newsworthy events and there will be quite some time between them most likely. 4iamking (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I Oppose, based on my crystal ball showing the end result with more news and longer-lasting impact (and Oppose Alt due to neither country's arguable neutrality matching Switzerland's for historic geopolitical distinction, plus prior SNOW). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt II as explicitly covered by ongoing and Oppose Alt III for tooting its own horn. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Alt II, I can't see why our readers should be deprived of a more helpfully informative blurb simply because of the presence of 3 words in a different and largely unrelated part of the Main page. Tlhslobus (talk)
 * It's seven words, including one duplicated link from the exact same box. The main reason is still the incompleteness of the story. Readers aren't deprived, anyway, just not forcefed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In the news now. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative tag. The story here is less that S+F are joining NATO per se. Rather, it is that they are abandoning long-held stances of political neutrality. Whether or not NATO actually takes them, this remains unchanged. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The story is that the application process is formally started and underway... In practical terms both countries really renounced neutrality in 1995 when they joined the EU. 4iamking (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the verb "renounce" in that ALT option for a couple reasons. Namely, I agree, Finland and Sweden haven't exactly been "neutral" for some time, not when compared to a country like Switzerland, which prizes neutrality, or the nonaligned movement members. My proposal would be something like "In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO."-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainly because EU has Article 42.7 (and to a lesser extent Article 222) that prevent member states from effectively staying Neutral. Switzerland doesn't have this restriction by not being in the EU, but It does get most of the benefits of EU membership. Switzerland and the European Microstates are the only countries in the single market that can be truly called neutral. 4iamking (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major geopolitical change, especially for Sweden. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (preferably the alternative tag) — For all reasons mentioned above. Some editors have argued that their neutrality has already been technically broken when they decided to send military support to Ukraine (or even when they joined the EU); that is debatable (see Neutral country); what is not debatable is that asking to join a military alliance is clearly a historic breach of neutrality, which is the way that multiple news sources have chosen to report on this. Also, I should mention that there seems to be a contradiction between the argument that reporting this before they actually join is WP:CRYSTAL and the argument that Turkey seems bound to veto their entry... Rather, refusing to post this in anticipation of a likely Turkish veto sounds to me like that would be the WP:CRYSTAL-based decision here... LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As new alternative blurbs have been added I would like to clarify and explain my preferences about each of them (although I accept any in general): my strongest preference is Alternative Blurb 2, because it explains the reason for the application; my second preference is Alternative Blurb 1; then, it would be Alternative Blurb 3, which I don't like as much because it doesn't specify the change (and makes it seem like we have made an arbitrary decision as to what would constitute a 'major' change in foreign policy); finally, I think the original blurb is too dry, as it does not explain why their application is relevant. I do not agree with those opposing AltBlurbs 1 and 2 with the argument that Sweden and Finland may have already broken neutrality earlier — perhaps they have, that is a debatable issue; what is not debatable is that, right now, with this application they have now definitely broken neutrality (and that is how most sources seem to be reporting on it)! LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Support: It is the application that is the news, and which is the start of the period of greatest apparent danger, especially if the process gets prolonged (Ukraine seemingly eventually got invaded because it had applied years ago but was not quickly admitted). Arguably we should have posted it earlier (as soon as the countries officially stated their intention to apply) when it was even more newsworthy (and I feel rather embarrassed for Wikipedia in general, and ITN in particular, that we didn't, thus somehow deeming self-evidently-not-ITN-worthy a once in three quarters of a century profound change for Finland, and a once in two centuries profound change for Sweden), instead of repeatedly snow-closing before some of us had a chance to express our Support (thus somehow seemingly deeming the question not even worthy of discussion, though I'm not criticizing the snow-closers, who behaved reasonably given what had got posted at the time), but that's now water under the bridge, and in any case better late than never. Waiting until if and when the membership formally comes into effect (which may well include various obstructions and a possibly long ratification process in every NATO member Parliament) will merely compound the apparent mistakes that we have already made. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not posting speculative intents is not a 'mistake', just as we do not post election results until official announcements. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added altblurb 2 because I think our blurb should tell our readers why it's happening (which is because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Obviously this is my preferred blurb, though I will happily support whatever blurb is needed to get the story posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - wait until they're officially a part of the organization 2600:1702:530:3240:ACBF:E71F:1F77:4496 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major foreign policy development given past non-aligned stances, and this will almost certainly be more “in the news” than when they formally ascend to NATO. The Kip (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per The Kip, both are breaking decades old neutrality stance amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is making global news and is an ITN blurb noteworthy no brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Application for membership is the story/in the news. When they eventually get accepted/rejected can be discussed at that time but should not negate this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is a clear consensus to post this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because my crystal ball says it will probably be considered stale at the point of joining, or, prior to that, the point of acceptance, or, prior to that, the rest of NATO voting… this is to say, I support posting these certainly ITN-worthy but progressive stories at the first or most publicly newsworthy point. And the public probably care more about the moment of application and all the implications with it, than the political debates that will happen. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It might be months or even years until it happens (if it does given Turkey's opposition).  This should be posted when it's ratified by NATO.  I wouldn't post a blurb about winning the lottery just because I'd bought a ticket. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What a bad analogy! The probability of winning the lottery after buying a ticket is not even remotely similar to that of joining NATO after applying to do so! And it is precisely because it might take a long time before they actually join that it makes sense to report now that they formally intend to join! LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do apologise *rolls eyes*. The rather obvious point I was making is that we'd be posting something that (a) may not happen for a long time, and (b) may not happen at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true. We would be posting something that has already happened: they have applied! No-one is saying they will join. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the point. No one is proposing a blurb about winning the lottery but about buying the ticket. To modify your example: If you were the preeminent scholar on why lotteries should be banned and have led a decades-long crusade to ban all lotteries, then the very act of you buying a lottery ticket would indeed be newsworthy, regardless of your chances of winning. And thus, the act of two countries with a decades/centuries-long policy of neutrality formally deciding to end their neutrality (buying a lottery ticket), is indeed newsworthy as well, regardless of them joining or not (winning the lottery). Regards So  Why  15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Although it is not ratified yet, but it is already a major event. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still premature. Turkey plays the shill for RU ... for now anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not really the process is formally underway, thats what the story is. Turkey objecting is just part of this process where Erdogan tries to gain some leverage in the whole ordeal, but it doesn't really detract from the actual story. 4iamking (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll see how Recep Tayyip plays the game. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with on this (and it's not that often I say that). Posting this now does seem premature to me, especially as it's not a formality that they'll actually join. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am most grateful for your lordship's astonishingly prescient remarks. -- Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the process being initiated and actually joining are two totally different stories, with totally different merits. thats more what my argument boils down to. That the process is officially started (and the what this means for European security) is what is dominating news headlines today. NATO admitting FI/SE would be something different. 4iamking (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until NATO accepts them. That will be the news. This is just the process leading up to the news. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In which the details are devilish. -- Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct but success or failure, the decision alone is newsworthy as evidenced by the huge amount of news sources saying that this decision alone is significant. Regards So  Why  14:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very newsworthy Googleguy007 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That can't be. Sca says it's not newsworthy. Who to believe? 🙄 WaltCip- (talk)  14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sca gives reasoning behind his, thus making his argument stronger. But oh my goodness, these are on the same level! 🙄 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The official applications are big news now regardless of the result. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a specific reason why Finland and Sweden should be treated differently than all other countries which have recently joined NATO and a blurb was posted at the time of their official accession? NATO’s recent expansion has been repeatedly cited as an argument in support of the invasion, so it doesn’t stand to reason that this is a special case because of the developments in Ukraine. Also, it’s not a major change in global politics. I’d rather call a major change if countries like Mexico or Brazil, whose economies are much bigger than Finland and Sweden combined, apply to join NATO (albeit still wait until the official joining to support posting a blurb). This smells like a systemic bias in favouring the Nordic over the Balkan countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the speed of the change is significant. Sweden and Finland have gone from neutral (or maybe first gear?) straight to fifth gear in the span of little over two months. Montenegro began negotiating with NATO after declaring independence, then applied for their Membership Action Plan two years after that, and then it took another 13 months before it was granted. That sort of process basically took just hours for Sweden and Finland, so okay, maybe there is bias, but it's with NATO (asterisk being Turkey) facilitating that sort of speed change. If Serbia applied for NATO membership tomorrow, that too would be a drastic change and would likewise be newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 18:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all hypothetical at this pt. -- Sca (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Finland and Sweden have deliberately stayed out of NATO since the foundation. The big news is their sudden wish to join. Most Eastern European countries probably wanted to join as soon as possible (when the Soviet Union, Russia or Serbia didn't prevent them) but knew they couldn't get in right away. Their official applications may have been timed to optimize their chances of being accepted (and not be invaded for applying). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s not convincing at all. They stayed out by their choice because they wanted to be non-aligned, and NATO has never put any significant efforts to convince them to join. It was the same case with Yugoslavia which was non-aligned by choice, so Finland and Sweden are comparable to Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia as former Yugoslav states which joined NATO in the past. I think it’s a much greater shift when a country formerly part of the Warsaw Pact joins NATO.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The great shift for Eastern Europe was the end of communism and the breakup of the Warzaw pact, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I assume that would have produced many ITN items if ITN existed. Most of the newly independent countries viewed Soviet Union/Russia/Serbia as a former occupier and possible invader they wanted protection from. The NATO applications were a natural consequence of the shift. It wasn't the shift itself. Sweden and Finland have been politically stable for at least 75 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From the NATO perspective, this is quite significant, as basically NATO will not only have the Baltic Sea as almost an internal one (Kaliningrad will be surrounded) but also they will have alternative routes of supply than the current choke point of the Suwałki Gap. So yes, them joining the Alliance does change quite a lot wrt to the defense of the Baltic states and Poland, even if Finland and Sweden were previously in a close relationship with NATO; and the defence of the Baltic is what preoccupied NATO commanders in the last couple of years.
 * Besides, in NATO, economies don't matter as much as military prowess. For example, Finland has a quite well-organised army (they have conscription) and a robust navy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Economies matter because NATO members commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending. As for the military prowess, however well-organised armies both Finland and Sweden have, they can't be compared to many existing NATO members (e.g. United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, France etc.) and others which are out of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is clear consensus that the application itself meets the significance threshold, but have the supports considered the quality of target updates? It seems light to me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it better to link to a single article, but there is Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations, though the latter is not as well updated as the former. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is a consensus and should be marked as ready/posted soon. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose normally I'd support this since it's been in the news for so often and so long, but I doubt this item would have been in the news so long if it weren't so linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We need to decide if incremental updates in that news item are worth posting. Since we apparently thought no (c.f. Siege of Mariupol nomination) then we should not post this either. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We do not post these until they are admitted. The supports see this as a major change, but if it is, it is a major change regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine and that is already in ongoing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please link to the policy that establishes "we do not post these until they are admitted". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. He didn't say or suggest it was policy, & strawman arguments are uncivil. Everyone here uses that kind of phrasing to describe the normal posting behavior at ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please link to the policy that establishes "we do not post these until they are admitted". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. He didn't say or suggest it was policy, & strawman arguments are uncivil. Everyone here uses that kind of phrasing to describe the normal posting behavior at ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Remembering that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another," I would argue the significance here is not sufficient to overcome a very small update on a very long page. Readers would have to hunt for the part of the article covered by our blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we shouldn't be including applications to international supraorganizations, only accessions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The BIG news today is the launching in Finland of a NATO/OTAN beer! – Sca (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait per Kiril Simeonovski, Jayron32, and Jim Michael. When it formally enters will be quite notable. But applications aren't important enough, and it's very possible that the application could still be vetoed by another NATO nation (most likely Turkey). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - its official. And with the new dimensions of Sweden vs Turkey this is definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's official that they've applied, not that they've joined. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others have argued above: Their mere application is not more ITN-worthy than Turkey's current opposition. Secondly, both countries are certainly less "neutral" than Switzerland because of their EU membership. Renewal6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's in the news and the article is of sufficient quality. Who decided that an application to NATO isn't newsworthy, and it's only the acceptance that's newsworthy? And since when is "newsworthy" part of ITN criteria? It's newsworthy because it's in the news. Editors are not "editorial boards" that decide whether or not an event is "important" enough to post. If it's in the news, then it's in the news--that means professional editorial boards have decided that it's newsworthy. We need to judge significance based on whether the world thinks its significant, not whether Wikipedia editors think it's significant. Levivich 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as no significant update is made to the article and its too soon. The section for both the countries say that they applied and that's not enough. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Unless this application results in new notable news (e.g. new Russian invasion), then wait until formal accession.  Spencer T• C 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed, posted RD) RD/Blurb: Vangelis

 * Support blurb. Career spanning around 60 years, the use of his famous Oscar-winning theme alone made him extraordinary enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. As per Kirill C1. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Ennio Morricone didn't get a blurb and he was a much bigger name than Vangelis. Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers, but Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing to get a blurb.  That said, his article is almost ready for RD, with only one CN tag and one or two uncited paragraphs. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers" - I 100% agree with that and feel that Morricone should have been blurbed. "Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing" - he is not just in film composing, in the field of music. He composed music not only for films, also for Stephen Hawking funeral. His also wrote for ballet and Olympic events. Big enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Morricone should have been blurbed 100% but Vangelis is more than just an Oscar-winning composer, he's an extremely influential electronic musician. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the Morricone itn, I think it is important to stress that an RD that is a household name, or has an extensive body of work should not be taken towards whether we should have a blurb. Insteaf we are looking for what the sources (which should be in the article) stress about the person's legacy or impact. Vangelis has that in spades, while that was clearly lacking on Morrisons.--M asem (t) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Influential composer with a long and noteworthy career and a groundbreaking and influential electronic musician. If Sidney Poitier or Betty White get blurbs, this one should too. His death is already gaining global coverage with more international obits most likely to come in the next hours. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A household name and one of the most outstanding and versatile composers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Some of his scores, such as “Chariots of Fire”, simply can’t get out of mind. I agree that Ennio Morricone also deserved a blurb, but his omission isn’t an argument not to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Per the Friends of Mr. Cairo. CoatCheck (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is in good enough shape for the main page. Oppose blurb, because a blurb is not an honor or an award we bestow on dead people because we think they were really important.  Blurbs are only for conveying information, and the only necessary information here is that he died.  There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about his death that needs reporting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * People need to have something "unusual or noteworthy" about their death to get a blurb? That's news to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I merely reiterate the guidance at WP:ITNRD, which states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." This seems to check literally every one of those boxes. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually used, not always. Still trying to get my head round "news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Think of "solely" as without coverage of police investigations, massive funerals or estate disputes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Ah yes, that's what real fame is (?) His death was a lead item on tonight's BBC News at Ten (with a clip of Chariots of Fire). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about fame (real or imagined). It's about whether the death is a story in itself. A television obituary, like in print, is basically a recap of the existing life story, with one new sentence/paragraph/postscript. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think it is about fame. Obituaries describe a person's entire life and an assessment of its significance. The death itself is merely the trigger for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In cases like these, exactly. Vangelis, who had done everything which made him a beloved and valuable musician, is now dead at 79. Everyone dies at an age, there's no hook. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He can't appear with a blurb as there's "no hook"? If only he'd had a "pizza collar bomb" explode live on TV, he'd have been straight in. Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep trying to make a blurb an award for people when they have done something particularly fame-worthy? ITN is not in the business of awarding things, it is in the business of letting people know that Wikipedia articles exist.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where else am I supposed to have done this? ITN is in the business of providing a blurb for those who have been outstanding in their field. Not just because their death is in someway notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two types of blurbs - for unusual death and for transformativeness. I think it is fair to say he was transformative. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only I see obits, I don't see the sort of coverage that would justify a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In an hour the news spread to everywhere from The Guardian to Washington Post, and to outlets specialising in cinema. There is an article headline that says "How Blade Runner Changed Electronic Music Forever", there is also "What separates Vangelis from other composers of his time, is his implementation of synthesisers and electronic instruments within his compositions", Grammy nominee writes that Vangelis "changed an entire era of music". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I write this, news of his death has only been publicly known for 2-3 hr tops. Long form obits like the NYTimes will take some time to come out, but even then, existing sources establish his legacy for a likely blurb. --M asem (t) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I cite this "It’s probably fair to say that Vangelis’s score for Blade Runner is the crowning achievement of electronic film scores as a whole since, in 2019, Pitchfork declared it to be the greatest film score of all time. This feels completely earned, since not only is the score otherworldly and gorgeous, but it’s also hard to imagine this extremely influential sci-fi film being nearly as great without it". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Widely covered. 'Transformative' in many ways, not just for Chariots of Fire.    – Sca (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: One has to admire this (from the AP story): "Vangelis said he didn’t ever experiment with his music and usually did everything on the first take." – Sca (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * support blurb he was an influential musician. --KaraLG84 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pump the brakes I think this merits a blurb, but recent history has looked unkindly on rush to post death blurbs.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think the article's shape is good enough for an RD posting while blurb discussion continues.  --M asem  (t) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, is there a way to post this to RD and have blurb discussions continue? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies, end of story. If he's a true household name, it'll draw its own attention in RD. No objection to a photo, if that's the main goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He is very famous, more so than random American congressmen that often end up in "Recent deaths". On the French Wikipedia, his picture is on the front page. Spafky (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He should have his picture here, too, just no sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the ultimate minimalistic defender against all death blurbs: old man dies. Would it change if he was younger? If it were a woman? As I said just a few days ago: making anything or anyone seem minimalistic, it really takes away the big picture. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've voted Old Woman Dies and opposed age-only blurbs for people under 70, too. OMD just happens more because it's usually an old man whom people suddenly treat as larger than life upon death. I'm not going to write at length about all the ways a death is ordinary, for obvious reasons, and won't feel bad about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Subjectively, I also feel John Carpenter leads this field. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's only 74 and looks pretty healthy? His music is fully defined by his films. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes, his original soundtracks have digitally aged well. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Carpenter has made music for his own films. He isn't regarded as a musical pioneer in his own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * His article regards him and Vangelis as "pioneers". Talk to it about that. In any case, if they also die alike, no blurb either. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd better let John know you've got him lined up. He'll be looking forward to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is almost ready for RD while Blurb conversation goes on. I have added a few tags that should be quite easy to fill. If someone can get to that, it would be great. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No blurb. Certainly not transformative enough for the levels we require. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are sources mentioned here, including the one where his score was named the best, and those given in the article, not enough? What sources could possibly show that levels are enough? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is adequate here. Not one of the rare cases where a blurb for a recent death is justified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No blurb Per others, RD is enough, and I dont feels like he meets any of the 2 criteria that could qualify it for one. 4iamking (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: I see at least 3 {CN} tags in the career section, and another in the personal life section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support He is a very famous composer. If random politicians from South Dakota or whatever end up on the Recent Death page, Vangelis absolutely deserves to. The French Wikipedia already has his picture framed on the front page, for example. --Spafky (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But if they're from North Dakota, that's a different story. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sca absolutely. North Dakota has an incredibly powerful family of politicians called the Bongbongs, and they have been known to forcefully disappear people from the fictitious state of Wyoming. I heard that information from my great great granny, who worked for them as a chauffeur for a couple years back in the [[Summer of '69|summer of '69. I think. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, my Mom hailed from N.D., from a tiny town 40 mi. north of Bismarck, i.e. in the Middle of Nowhere. Later they moved to a larger town, which you can visit here. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. 65.94.214.187 (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb of course We posted literalwho american judges no one has ever heard about. Alas this website is dominated by americans and american culture. Had Vangelis been American, he would have 100% posted already. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens). You have a right to your opinion, but nevertheless it originates from falsehood. WaltCip- (talk)  13:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The audacity of wikipedia admins to think their opinion is the truth is astonishing. That star wars actress and some american judge have been posted, meanwhile many great minds will never be simply because american culture dominates 90% of wikipedia. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fisher has been acknowledged by most of the contributors here as a mistake, and Ginsburg's death was significant because of the situation during which it occurred. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting Carrie Fisher's death as a blurb was not a mistake. The sheer volume of news coverage her death received dwarfs that of most celebrity deaths. It was the right call. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At least we posted this dwarf celebrity death. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens).". First, why naturalised citizens are not to be counted? Second, the comment was about blurb posting. Non-english speaking people do not usually get blurb, and even if they do, they get pulled. It is fair to point that this occurs in case of blurbs. If even such celebrated and known actors as William Hurt doesn't get blurb, there is barely chance a European gets blurb. At the moment of his death Shane Warne had 30 Wikpedia entries, Vangelis - 65. Who is more worldwide famous is obvious. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Support blurb, to make it short: transformative for his work in electronic music and film music. --Clibenfoart (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready for RD It looks we're about 50-50 on the blurb, but there do not appear to be any quality objections.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I mean no disrespect to Vangelis, of course. I even owned the 1492 score on CD. But ~24 hours on, I'm not seeing the sort of reaction here that I think warrants a blurb, and he was no longer especially in the limelight. Also, we blurbed Carrie Fisher five and a half years ago, it's time to move on (not sure who the American judge in this case is). Nohomersryan (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many votes oppose are based on not blurbing Morricone, it seems. I do not understand ahwt sort of reaction would warrant blurb. It was previously said that the sources should demonstrate he is transformative. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note re: Carrie Fisher (and other such examples): The mistakes of the past are not a justification for continuing such mistakes indefinitely. Examples of times in the past where we screwed up doesn't actually bind us to continue to screw up, so examples of "we did this thing here before, so why aren't we doing it now" are always unconvincing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and that was John Williams, bless him, not even John Carpenter. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The mistakes of the past are not a justification for continuing such mistakes indefinitely." I agree with that. Not posting Morricone was mistake. And on basis of not posting him every composer is not being posted, Mikis Theodorakis, author of sirtaki dance, was not posted despite having merit for blurb, there are votes against Vangelis now on that basis. We should get out of this circle and posted extremely transformative composer. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which things we did in the past that you think were mistakes, you shouldn't be bringing them up. What you should be doing is applying the standards of well-established best practices, as laid out at WP:ITNRD, and assessing each individual nomination based on those standards and information from reliable sources.  And if consensus goes a different way than you wanted it to on this nomination, forgetting it and moving on to the next one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have any consensus here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I can tell. The current vote seems to be 8 in favor to 10 opposed to blurb.  I wouldn't describe that as a clear consensus either way.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The current vote seems to be 8 in favor to 10 opposed to blurb" I do not think that User:CoatCheck opposed blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Regardless of which things we did in the past that you think were mistakes, you shouldn't be bringing them up. What you should be doing is applying the standards of well-established best practices, as laid out at WP:ITNRD, and assessing each individual nomination based on those standards and information from reliable sources."  Reliable sources and international coverage point to him being pioneer in electronic music"Vangelis will go down in history as the composer of the soundtrack for the film Chariots of Fire, perhaps the best sports film in history". He made innovative way of writing soundtrack - he wrote it without rehearsals: "When he was creating the various themes for the film Vangelis would naturally compose, improvise and record his pieces as the scenes were being played before him, letting the visuals and tone of the scene direct his musical progressions without prior rehearsal". "This natural, unrehearsed reactionary creative interpretation of what the composer was seeing was unprecedented". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. For brevity's sake, I'll just say I agree with the comments above that he was transformative in his field and we should post him regardless of whether we posted person x (which is less offensive than the knee-jerk "old person dies" oppose). As an aside, I think we should revisit my (semi-serious) suggestion to topic ban anyone who is still bringing up Carrie Fisher at this point. -- Vaulter  18:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was she related to Carrie Nation? -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment He received public service medal from NASA, had an asteroid (no 6354) named after him and was made Commandeur of Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. He appeared on Greek postage stamp. That is kind of honours we expect for blurbed persons. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He "didn’t need to dabble in rock and pop music: by the 1990s, his impact on those genres had become clear", then the list of covers and samples is given. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but that list contains no rock. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Too right. And where's the Chinese hip hop and Nowegian thrashcore? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you combine thrash, 666 and Jay-C, you get this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. "The three albums they released as Jon and Vangelis deftly bridged the gap between prog rock and the vogue for synth-pop." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The gap is not the rock (though The Friends of Mr Cairo's infobox says otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Not that it matters, but that list contains no rock." I agree that this does not matter. One more url describing his influence: . Kirill C1 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per all supports above. More famous and historically influential than, e.g., the current president of Greece, if that person happened to die today. BD2412  T 23:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Katerina Sakellaropoulou wouldn't get a blurb if she was tragically run over by a bus today either, because she's only been in the position two years and President is mostly ceremonial anyway. Try again? Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What if Kyriakos Mitsotakis drove the bus? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My point stands. I didn't say he was equally famous and historically influential, but more so. Offhand, I can't think of another Greek of equivalent notability alive today. BD2412  T 00:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A-ha, Irene Papas still lives, way nearer equivalent. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A-ha, Irene Papas still lives, way nearer equivalent. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Newswise, famous fatalities have a short shelf life. It's been four days. If we're going to blurb this, we should do so now, or drop it & move on. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh do be quiet Sca, you don’t call the shots as you contribute nothing here. Maybe it’s time for the WP:NOTHERE ban, what do you think? 123.243.3.251 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you "call the shots" with your one unsigned, obnoxious contribution? Halt's Maul. -- Sca (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the news on his death only broke 2 days ago, 2 days after his death. I filed it on the day of death since that was more appropriate in this situation (compared to when a death is reported a week later). --M asem (t) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now trying to think of who "calls the shots" here. Sounds like a recipe for universal loathing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no hard time limit, per se, per In the news. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Kirill C1, which in my opinion appears to be strongly notable enough.  Mario Jump  83!  07:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Preston

 * Support Googleguy007 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, although I really wish that User:Googleguy007 and User:4meter4 had given better explanation for their supports. Article is fine, well cited, and long enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) End of Siege of Mariupol

 *  Comment Oppose – There was an element of inevitability about this, which wasn't the case with the Moskva. While possibly symbolic for the Russians, the final evacuation of Mariupol doesn't substantially change the balance of forces. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, wait. Nothing is clear yet. We only know that a chunk (probably a large one) of Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal got evacuated, just at this moment it doesn't seem they have ceded control of the plant. Another thing is that the Ukrainian side, quoted by AP, says that some Ukrainian troops still remain inside the plant. This medieval horror of a siege might be already wrapping up, but the credits haven't appeared yet on the screen. When it ends in whatever outcome, then yes, we should all be pounding on the F button hard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that statement -- not a direct quote -- in the AP piece saying Ukraine was "working to pull out the fighters that remain." It seemed somewhat dodgy. Note that farther down in the story an ex-Ukraine official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, is quoted as saying (time not specified) in a BBC story that those remaining in the plant are still "able to defend it ... but I think it’s important to understand that their main mission is completed and now their lives need to be saved." I got the impression this statement may have been made before the evacuations detailed here. Situation murky. -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither AP nor BBC already feature the response of Danylyuk about the remaining soldiers. Still, we have no rush. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the first statement in the AP story probably is their paraphrase of the quote in the BBC story they cite. If the AP had its own quote they would have used it. War reporting these days seems to be somewhat incestuous. -- Sca (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait as per the very good summary by . Not 100% clear that this has ended. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is already covered by the ongoing item. And we never decided that “sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb”. The sinking of the Moskva was posted because of the records that she was the largest Soviet/Russian warship to sink after World War II and the first Russian flagship to sink in more than a century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WaitReports on the actual situation on the ground still a bit dodgy as to if fighting is definitively over (reports suggest some ukrainians may still be held up inside the works), otherwise significant enough I think. 4iamking (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose what the hell is a "Russian victory"? Don't use Wikipedia's main page as a device for advancing pro-Russian propaganda.  Disgusting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reporting on a russian victory if there has been a russian victory is not pro-Russian propoganda. I despise what russia is doing as much as anyone but also udnerstand that we have to remove that bias while reporting. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it is, like it or not. The siege of Mariupol ending would mean Mariupol is entirely under Russian control, and thus a Russian Victory. That's reporting facts, not "pro-Russian propaganda". We're talking about a battle, not the war. 4iamking (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You guys are crazy. This is the "Russian special operation".  Declaring "victory" is utter bollocks.  Still, why not get the Russian flags out to celebrate guys! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * no one is calling it a "special operation" other than Russia themselves, if not a "victory", what word would you use to describe the outcome of the battle? you can either call it a Ukrainian Defeat or a Russian Victory, but both amount to the same thing. 4iamking (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is calling it that, The Rambling Man is being purposely obtuse to accuse us of being russian sympathizers. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that "Russian propaganda", just because ukraine lost doesn't mean it's fake and it's "russian propaganda". I could say more, but Wikipedia wil not let me. (As usual). CR-1-AB (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we should avoid the victory/defeat labels by referring to Ukrainian evacuation from and/or Russ occupation of Mariupol -- a widely known locale due to weeks of focused coverage. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait As per Googleguy007 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. Already on ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless and until the war itself ends, individual sieges and battles are rather fluid ways to report on the war. We already have a link to an article about the war, which is sufficient.  The status of the various military units and the territory under their control is not worth updating at this level of granularity; it's fluid anyways, and if people want that they can get there through the link that is already there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless and until the war itself ends, individual sieges and battles are rather fluid ways to report on the war. We already have a link to an article about the war, which is sufficient.  The status of the various military units and the territory under their control is not worth updating at this level of granularity; it's fluid anyways, and if people want that they can get there through the link that is already there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Over now, very important. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM. "Victory"? Come on. This is not how we should describe this humanitarian disaster. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per a previous discussion we had where individual battles should not be blurbed (as per the war being labelled "Ongoing" along with COVID). To all the folks out there who are claiming that Support !voters are "russian sympathizers" should be ashamed of yourselves for violating WP:ACCUSE and WP:CIVIL. Come on now... but Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Default position is to not post each battle. At first glance, the significance here is in the remarkable resistance on the city against overwhelming force. That being the case, the eventual fall is expected and not noteworthy. What's more, posting a lesser Russian victory days after their loss of Kharkiv creates a unneeded air of bias. It's just why we're better off just pointing to the Ongoing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note. Russians didn't lose Kharkiv because they never captured it in the first place. They simply retreated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment does this mean we're done posting incremental updates as blurbs? We posted the unverified claims of war crimes, we posted the propaganda victory (but strategically worthless) story about that Russian ship, and we posted I think some story about Russia at the UN. I hope it's finished now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's not over yet according to BBC. That said, I completely disagree with LaserLegs unusual perspective on the Russian invasion. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Mellor

 * Quite a few "failed verification" notices to fix. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No tags now. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, think we're there now. The prose is very ordinary, but it's accurate and sourced, so whatever; the lead's thin... But I'm all done on this one, personally :) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs)
 * This wikibio is READY for RD. More than long enough to qualify (800+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing awful to complain about. --PFHLai (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Missed the ping earlier, it's much improved. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ben Roy Mottelson

 * I've left a note at WikiProject Physics's talkpage to see if anyone there wants to beef this wikibio up a bit. For sure, that paragraph on the work that led to the 1975 Nobel Prize needs at least a footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Forbes72 has put in a few new footnotes there. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough to qualify (580+ words), with no concerns regarding formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing to complain about (except a fork). --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to go. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sidney Kramer

 * Support in principle, just please fix that one CN tag! Other than that, we are good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That lone CN tag is now gone. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is READY for RD. Long enough (400+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig has no complaints. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is sourced, tag is gone. Jusdafax (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Hilarion (Kapral)

 * Oppose per quality. Article is still orange tagged for WP:CITE. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margot Heuman

 * Support, recent article in good shape --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rainer Basedow

 * Support but I don't deserve credit yet, and it's not likely that will earn it, having a different RD on my plate for today. I only fixed some basic errors, such as letting him teach where he studied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * removed my credit, won't get to it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angus Grossart

 * Comment: Article at present is mostly a list of roles without any description ("CV in prose format"); insufficient depth of coverage at present.  Spencer T• C 04:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Spencer, there have been improvements thanks to Malcolmxl5. Is this good to go now? CPClegg (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of stating that he cofounded Noble Grossart, the article lacks any other information about specifically what he did with the company (outside of 1 sentence describing a dividend he received). What initiatives did he lead? What directions did the company make? Any business decisions (e.g. mergers/acquisitions), etc.  Spencer T• C 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve expanded the paragraph on Noble Grossart a little with the help of an obituary published in The Financial Times. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is well cited for one of its size, but I'm concerned about how it's size is a bit too small. If additions are made, it would be perfect. For now, it's still pretty good, just not 100%. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough to qualify (450+ words), with no concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing to complain about. --PFHLai (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sweden ends its Neutrality

 * Oppose so far as I can see, nothing has changed since, which was closed less than 24 hours ago. Wait until if/when they both get accepted into NATO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose oh Lord...just another snow close, per Joseph. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Technically, this happened in 1995 when Sweden joined the EU.4iamking (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Nothing will change on this any time soon. This process takes time and intent is not ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close per Joseph and DarkSide830.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 20:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New President of Somalia

 * Comment there is one section in the elections article without any references at all. Other than this, everything seems fine.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the recent talk page discussion, this should not be described as an election as it seems to have been a complex process of indirect horse-trading in which delegates are typically bought. The results have a cn and the article contains painful howlers like "orchastrated". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus there seems to be that it's not our place to dictate what an election is... the word "election" doesn't define anything about who the electorate has to be. 4iamking (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The articles on the election and the president-elect are both in very good shape. Given that it's an ITNR item, I think it's ready to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited, long enough, and generally issue free. Based on my personal consensus, what matters here is not whether or not the election was free or fair. That's not what we do, we're just here to show what's in the news without acting like a news ticker. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Fakescientist8000. It's ITNR and article is in good shape. No further debate belongs to us. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per previous. The Kip (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting I hope someone fixes the WP:PROSELINE in "January 2022 agreement" and adds accessibility to the tables, but otherwise it's good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment - I'm not convinced this nomination actually qualifies under WP:ITN/R. ITNR says either "general election" or "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." This was an election by parliament not a general election. We say the PM is the one in Somalia who "constitutionally administer the executive of their respective state/government" / "the Prime Minister, who serves as the head of government". -- KTC (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * True. But it did get the votes. Not sure we can invalidate our own minielections for having grown from a fundamental misconception. It's up to voters how diligent they want to be on an issue before choosing, in "real" democracy. Maybe a mass ping beats an administrative pull, let the electorate reconsider (not necesssarily change) their pick in light of the truth. I'll Post-Post Oppose, personally. Somalia is (believed to be) very politically corrupt and we shouldn't appear to promote such things unless our own protocol requires it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * People supporting above explicitly noted that it's ITNR in 4 of the 5 support comments, so clearly the support related only to the quality of the article rather than whether it should be blurb in the first place. I could have pulled it, but I didn't because even though I don't think it's ITNR, I can see it be argued that it's close enough to qualify. Would welcome feedback -- KTC (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed at the time and the consensus was clear: whether they are "real" elections or not, if they are elections, the leadership of a country is being changed and RS are talking about it, it is ITNR and should be included in the Main Page if the quality and consensus requirements are met. We, as editors, cannot go much further. Another issue is whether in the blurb you can and do mention the "unfair" or "undemocratic" status of an election and I, particularly, don't think it is far-fetched. But beware, the debate on whether they are "real" elections or not can lead to non-neutral opinions, to long debates without consensus and in the end only taking into account the elections that take place in Western countries (mainly). Where would we put the limits, then, of what is and what is not "real" or "fair"?  _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, I did not mark it as ITNR (someone else did) but I posted it on its own merits. I explained my nomination in my comment, a head of state election, on the List of current heads of state and government it is blue (meaning signficant power) although not head of government in Somalia. For context, I found this nomination suitable as we posted the Italian presidential election, which was also a parliamentery vote with the president having even less power. In Somalia it made the election even more significant with a peaceful transfer of power, RS picking it up, and that they finally managed to complete the election after two year of delays (it even made it to the Wikipedia DYK and a lot of international pressure, besides a crisis). The article is in good shape, and of course the consesus decides the faith of this nomination.  BastianMAT (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I saw only the one oppose vote, with an argument that gained little to no traction on WT:ITN, and still see no pull votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Alsoriano97, this has already been discussed and the consensus was that we as editors can’t decide what is and isn’t an election. As long as it is in ITN/R and it meets general criteria (coverage in reliable sources, quality of article etc), the elections should be posted. We are only telling readers what is in the news and it isn’t our place to decide what counts as an election.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 20:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by KTC, it's not about the election. It's that a change in an office without the executive power is not ITNR. The Prime Minister gets that free ticket. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This election seems to end a year-long political crisis which occurred after the former president suspended prime minister's executive power, so it's very naive to believe that the prime minister administers the executive power in practice when the president can suspend it. Anyway, even if this isn't an ITNR item because "constitutionally" it's the prime minister with the executive power, this whole situation with the political crisis and all potential repercussions which this election ends is notable enough for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note On Coverage The sources in the nom labeled Al Jazeera, Washington Post and France24 are wire copies, not independent reports. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you have some more Mr Coverage, happy reading! VOA, Bloomberg, CNN, NY Times, WSJ BastianMAT (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, thank you, Mr Happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you have some more Mr Coverage, happy reading! VOA, Bloomberg, CNN, NY Times, WSJ BastianMAT (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, thank you, Mr Happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 United States infant formula shortage

 * Oppose.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This is not significant worldwide news. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a significant event, not comparable to the other worldwide events we have on ongoing (COVID-19 pandemic and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), which is the level of how important things need to be to be posted on ongoing. If this wasn't in the US, it wouldn't even have been suggested... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph. Suggest snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, not the reaction I was expecting! How is being a US event disqualifying? Would the event be acceptable as a one-time entry rather than ongoing (even though it is ongoing)? Your own guideline for significance says "Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." What gives? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have enough significant coverage for the front page of this worldwide encyclopedia. End of story. If there were a shortage of the same food in any other country, nobody would nominate it here. Stop complaining at users who are applying the ITN rules correctly. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Global significance" is a code for "it happened in America" and is a yardstick rarely applied to other countries (such as disasters or sports). The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a significant and long running shortage of baby food, but that's not "significant". Welcome to ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the regulars here don't respect the rules. oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. There is no rule that this be "significant worldwide news" or "comparable to the other worldwide events". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the country/countries it affects, the news coverage doesn't demonstrate it's a notable enough event for the front page. Posting this explicitly so that people can't pull the "worldwide" trick to try and push US-stuff on the front page again. It's only US articles where we get an overkill of nominatuions that mostly get rejected as not important enough, never an issue with any other country... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note the word solely. The event only relating to a single country is not the only reason this is being opposed. It's also not significant. WaltCip- (talk)  15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a blurb, not ongoing, and the blurb should mention the plant closure that led to the shortage. The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I re-nominated as a blurb below; please vote there, and if you're feeling really nice, help improve the blurb to ITN standards! Thanks!! — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also oppose blurb since the coverage does not demonstrate it being ITN worthy. Also, as this started months ago, any blurb would be stale. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's literally happening and drawing news coverage right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done. Good luck Muboshgu. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too. Going against the anti-US bias here gets tiresome and I'm spent from having to argue that a domestic terrorist incident is worthy of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even less so as a blurb, didn't even realize there was such a thing, but regardless it just feels like a localized version of the Toilet Paper/Yeast shortages at the beginning of Covid, or the sunflower oil ones more recently.4iamking (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware, but all humans can survive without toilet paper and yeast. That is not true of all infants and formula. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do a quick search on News.google.com for "Baby Formula" and tell me how many results you find that aren't just American tabloids or local news sites that are GDPR blocked anyway. Its not making the international news at all. 4iamking (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS: name a major US media entity that isn't covering this! — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 United States infant formula shortage

 * As above, so below. Oppose categorically. Not only is this a ridiculously localized microcosm of the supply chain crisis that all nations are facing due to COVID-19 (which is already an ongoing item), but the article (and not incidentally the blurb) is rife with POV problems. Let it go.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I on an alien planet? What POV? And all across the third most populous country in the world is "ridiculously localized"? I can sense I'm losing a battle here, but those arguments are bonkers. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A section header named "Republican misinformation about shortage" doesn't seem very WP:NPOV to me? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that, but they were all Republicans! — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my comments on the other thread with the same heading name. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-opened - I'm going to be gracious and re-open this thread, reverting User:Fakescientist8000's closure. It's true that this didn't get a chance to run for a full few hours. But in reopening this, I will caution that it's highly unlikely the consensus will change.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support I can understand concerns this may seem stale since the shortage is based on events from Feb, but the part that is hitting hard, the 43% lack of supply, was the big news last week that brought this to a crisis level. --M asem (t) 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above discussion, but also more than anything its really not reported in any meaningful way by any non-american news media.4iamking (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A few minutes of looking for international coverage: UK, UK, France, Spain, China, Mexico, Qatar/worldwide, Switzerland, Japan, Russia. I'm sure you can find a hundred others. Why are you lying? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail is a deprecated source, and thus unreliable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, and I guess the dozens of other international sources are equally invalid, for a reason I'm sure you can create. Don't "cheers" me as if you're acting in good faith. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not "cheersing" you in particular, it's part of his signature (and yes, it often seems inappropriate in context). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement that ITN items have international coverage. It can help highlight importance but by no means required. --M asem (t) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But even then, I don't see how this is really much different from the sunflower shortages, shortly after the Ukraine war started or the yeast/toilet paper ones at the beginning of covid. If it were any other country I can almost guarantee nobody would have suggested it. 4iamking (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of those would be tied to ongoing posts, so a new blurb wouldn't be appropriate. But this formula shortage is wholly unrelated to any ongoing event. --M asem (t) 17:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not really though, at least its all linked to how streamlined we've made our supply chains that any event can easily throw them off, but none of this is anything new and people have been talking about a "supply chain crisis" for a while now. 4iamking (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's certainly in the news. I'm in the UK but heard some of the buzz and wondered what was happening to generate it.  Wikipedia is here to inform so what's the problem?  Note that there are some interesting angles to the story.  I'd not heard of shopping bots before... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to a situation that happened in Australia between 2008 and 2013. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Having read the comments above, I am flummoxed. Here in Mexico, the event is causing grave concern that it may well spread south from the US because of the economic connections in the supply chain.,,,. As most of the English-language news available here is from abroad, I note that the Guardian has been covering the situation for months,, as has Aljazeera. The latter's coverage clearly shows that the issue in the US is having effects abroad, i.e. see impact on Russia. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. If this had been any other country it would never have been snow-closed as "lacking international significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support A pretty rare event especially for the world's third most populous country (per LaserLegs). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The impact and international interest is very limited in a specific country in a specific way. This is not the New York Times and American users should start to think that this page is not for nominations to some non-existent type of Main Page: the USA and that not everything that affects this country has global impact. As Joseph said, if this were to affect another country (even another macro power) most likely the users above would be objecting. Wasting our time. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we usually don’t post shortages of single products unless they trigger serious consequences such as global crises or famines. I might consider posting this in case it results in a significantly increased infant mortality; if that’s not the case, there’s no need to heed the shortage of an easily substitutable good. At the same time, most of Europe is short on natural gas, which is much more important commodity than baby milk, so a resounding no for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Doctors indicate that formula is not easily substituted, warning against cow's milk, goat milk, sheep's milk, powdered milk and plant-based substitutes. They have also noted that mothers have to learn to lactate or re-lactate and for some that is not possible.,,, SusunW (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling formula an "easily substituted good" is an astonishing level of ignorance of the topic. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From an economic point of view, substitutes don’t need to be of similar quality to attain the same goal. Margarine is a substitute for butter even though it’s made from oil. What doctors warn against is that the substitutes may not be of sufficient quality, but that doesn’t mean they fail to prevent babies from undernourishment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What alternatives are you even talking about? The questionable YouTube homebrews? The cow's milk that is well known to be harmful to younger infants? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parental desperation is always sad everywhere, but pending a spike in infant mortality or the development of a new cheap wondersupplement, not shocking enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Terrible but too local (US-centric). We don't post similar shortages in other countries.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The ITN candidate guideline specifically dismisses arguments based on an event being specific to one country; and this event has international effects and is no more limited to one country that the Ukraine war is. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What international effects? The Ukrainian war and this are two completely different things. One is an invasion which has killed countless people, devastated millions of lives, and shaped international geopolitics for the next few years. This, is some baby formula not being on the shelves. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a shortage, not a famine. We can't cover shortages unless there are absolutely severe immediate consequences. Thriley (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose bloody hell, some countries on the planet don't even have formula. Get over it Amurica.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too US-centric when so many more newsworthy critical issues are going on around the world (whether those issues have to do with supply chain crises or other events). As stated above, there is not a famine, and there are alternatives. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't get my favourite brand of muesli here in Australia right now. This is precisely the kind of nomination that makes Americans look like ignorant, parochial fools to many people among the other 95% of the world's population. And most Americans aren't. Shut this down now to stop more people thinking otherwise!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think muesli (whatever the heck that is) and baby formula are the same thing? Babies without either breast milk or formula will die of malnourishment. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is more of an ongoing thing than an individual event, anyway. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - way minor, given that we're currently in a global food crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Milgaard

 * One block quote in exoneration that lacks a reference. Stephen 09:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stephen. I was unable to verify that quote and removed it. That paragraph is now re-written. I hope it's good enough for RD now. --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good for me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Klara Höfels

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. Long enough (400+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Lebanese general elections

 * Oppose The "results" section is empty, the "reactions" section is incomplete and the "Political parties and coalitions" section is also orange-tagged. The article needs work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Aforementioned work complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Lebanese general election currently has only one sentence of prose. The tables have empty columns. Under the tables, the subsection on domestic reactions is empty. It looks like more updating is needed. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC) I have removed the empty section on domestic reactions. --PFHLai (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

India and Korea are the champions of the 2022 Thomas & Uber Cups

 * Support ITNR recurring item, although I’ve suggested an altblurb. The Kip (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tables upon tables, no prose update. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs way more prose (like most sports articles nominated here, it is just table after table with no prose to explain it). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Urvashi Vaid

 * Support—article looks just about ready to me, so I'd say it can add should be added in due course.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many citation needed tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Four {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These last four {cn} tags have been removed by User:Fakescientist8000 a few hours ago. --PFHLai (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Finland and Sweden announce intent to join NATO

 * Wait Until the application letter is actually sent. 4iamking (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a lot of events that could be blurbed here, the parliamentary vote, the invitation, the signing of the accession protocol, the ratification by all members and the treaty coming into force. I don't think it's appropriate to have separate posts for each step. Which one did we use for North Macedonia? Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * as I see it there are 2 major events: the signing of the Ascension Protocol, which starts the process and Ratification/Full membership. In North Macedonia's case there was over a year gap between these events (AP was signed in February 2019; Full Ratification & Membership happened in March 2020) 4iamking (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect both Finland and Sweden will find their applications "fast-tracked". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, the gap may be shorter, and some prior steps like the MAP skipped, but both events will still take place. 4iamking (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Countries joining NATO is important enough for ITN, but countries merely saying they're going to isn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once NATO officially accepts Finland is the time to post. --M asem (t) 13:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note When it happens, candidate article might be Finland–NATO relations, which will obviously require a re-write. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually is accepted/denied. Until then, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Premature, as others have noted above ... and note below. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not needed. Turkey has opposed it too, so I wonder if this will really happen. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a problem with all of his "friends and allies", not just the potential new-comers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the application is actually filed, which will be as in the news as this announcement.(when the application is accepted will also merit posting) A country abandoning neutrality to join a large alliance is notable and also tied to the invasion of Ukraine. Not worried about Turkey yet, they likely want something in return (Hungary too). 331dot (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per 331dot —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. There're a couple of points in the process that make sense for this to appear in ITN (assuming it's judged noteworthy):
 * Officially stating intention to join. (We are here.)
 * Submitting an application. (Some time next week?)
 * Negotiations concluding. (A few weeks' time?)
 * Ratification concluding. (Months?)
 * Entry into force. (Months? Probably very shortly after ratification concludes.)
 * Assuming it only appears on ITN once (which is pretty reasonable), which of these events is likely to send the largest surge of readers who would like to see the article, and so, by the criterion of being most useful to readers, be the event that triggers the ITN blurb? I'm not certain, but I would guess it'll be the accession entering into force - i.e., the last, ultimately decisive step in the process, which will probably come with a fresh wave of news reporting driving interest.
 * Also, yeah, the article to point to will be Finland–NATO relations, unless there's a specific Accession of Finland to NATO article created in the meantime, though I doubt it will be. FrankSpheres (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say application submission and entry into force are the main newsworthy events. It can be several months between them, it was 13 months for the last new member (North Macedonia), though likely the period may be shorter this time around. 4iamking (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, and see if they are dsuccssful. Alex-h (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until successful. A statement of intention to join is no different to Turkey stating its intention to veto the whole thing. Also I don't know why a Swedish Democrats press conference is being brought up, as the opinion of an opposition party is completely trivial. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding Sweden with a different article target, as Sweden-NATO relations is not yet updated. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note Reopening. No consensus to close, let's wait and see. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's certainly not gonna happen right away. Let's wait until at least one of them actually joins NATO. – Sca (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uri Savir

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. Long enough (400+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Nicholas (businessman)

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. Long enough (500+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxi Rolón

 * Posted Stephen 02:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David West (baseball)

 * Posted Him and Jeff Innis so quickly.... the late 80s Mets I remember... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Symonds

 * Oppose article needs a lot more sourcing and general cleanup e.g. cricket and non-cricket related sections are interspersed with each other, WP:Controversy sections is currently violated too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There has been a massive amount of constructive editing of this article today. No Citation needed tags remain. Looking good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. Pretty much all of his domestic and international career has little to no references, whereas his TV appearance in India is refbomb'd to the extreme.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator's Comment Big thanks to several editors for their efforts thus far with the referencing. The Career sections have significantly improved. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Getting there. Only a tiny bit left to do I think, then to sort out the refbombing Lugnuts mentioned. Should be done tonight I hope, at least pending any further input people may have. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Okay, I now think we're there. Pinging User:Joseph2302, User:TDKR Chicago 101 and User:Lugnuts, if you wouldn't mind casting your eyes over the progress made and considering whether it's now in an acceptable state or not. (There may still be little bits that need further attention, but at this point I've stared at it for too long to be able to distinguish good from bad, ha.) Thanks! Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's an excellent update and kudos for sorting out the controversy sections. Thanks!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Much improved, nice work. Andrew_Symonds needs references, then willing to support once that is finished.  Spencer T• C 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now updated that section!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Following all the updates that have been done. Great work from everyone who's chipped in.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support great work on getting the updates and sourcing done. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well developed right now with the collaboration of every editors. Will it possible to add tributes section like we did to Shane Warne? I initially added tributes from his fellow teammates and opponent players but was removed saying it is not necessary. Kudos to everyone for putting their efforts. Abishe (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I helped with one of the orange tags, so the Indian League section should be good to go. Thank you to all the other updaters for your hard work on this article! This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There were a couple of CN tags left, but I've addressed them now.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2022

 * Comment It still needs some updating, winner isn't in the lead. Other results need more detail. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major event and article’s well-developed. The Kip (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Essential information updated. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the event article has no sources for Scoreboard section (and semi final scores appear to be missing). And if Kalush (rap group) is to be included as a bold link, it needs updating to mention that they won this event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's because the event just happened, and the scoreboard contains a big amount of data. I'm working on it now, should be done within an hour or two. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Well researched article with lots of useful details.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks ready now. Posting. --Tone 09:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could an image of the band be added, e.g. File:Kalush Orchestra at the Ukraine Media Center, 2022 A.png? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support, although I really wish Tone would've waited a few more hours for a larger consensus to concur. Article looks fine, good prose too. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Very, very widely covered, and has gotten 10M+ views on YouTube. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: shouldn't the link text be Eurovision Song Contest 2022, instead of just Eurovision Song Contest, for link clarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jochem van Hees (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need to treat our readers like idiots. Anyone reading an entry in the "in the news" section is going to know that we're talking about the most recent contest. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And now Eurovisiongate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was already brought up before the votes were read and taken into account with the posted results, might bring some extra behind the scenes drama but it won't change any results. 4iamking (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brought up by whom? In which forum? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By the EBU, with the press release you linked. 4iamking (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Buffalo shooting

 * Wait The most likely nature of this attack, and it having a similar death toll to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting which was previously posted, definitely makes this "In the news" worthy IMO. But obviously the article needs a lot of expansion before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous reasons, and the article is in good enough shape now. Mount Patagonia (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Article is currently a stub. Need to wait before addressing it being a blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, but roughly equate to the 2021 Boulder shooting instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just reminding, we never blurbed that one. 4iamking (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not waiting to vote any certain way. Just waiting to know more first, a lesson relearned from that one. Precedent isn't everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to sleep on it. If it's posted very quickly, remember, there's a presumption of innocence in BLPCRIME, even or especially for the worst apparent cases. Try to not present allegations as facts in "our" voice, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be closer to the 2019 El Paso shooting, which we did blurb, and Christchurch, as Masem mentioned below. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of manifesto awareness, sure. In location, number of dead, number of injured and percentage of police shot, no. Matter of focus. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Only noting that the nature behind this shooting (which appears to be strongly racial motivated if the truth about having a manifesto, live streaming it, etc.) makes this far more unusual than typical mass shootings in the US. --M asem (t) 22:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mass shootings in the US occur with a frequency that makes them near commonplace and I rarely support blurbing them anymore. But multiple RS sources are stating unequivocally that this was a racially motivated attack. That's enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. This is clearly more than a "run of the mill American shooting". There was shooting in Milwaukee last night after the NBA game and we don't even have an article on it. This was a premeditated attack where a white supremacist went to a black area with the n-word written on his gun, livestreamed the attack, and he apparently put out a manifesto espousing Great Replacement Theory. This is an ITN story. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This has been on CNN for the past few hours and is already the deadliest shooting in America this year, as well as tying for the 2nd deadliest shooting in New York state's 234-year history. It's gotten a lot of publicity and NEEDS to be featured. The Wikipedia article for it has been fleshed out rather quickly, with help from me and others, of course. My case is concrete. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass shootings in the US are commonplace, and any speculation on motive (nothing has been confirmed) does not justify posting this, as it's speculation and not fact. Using alleged motives to post would be a violation of BLPCRIME in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We should wait and see if there's any more to this than just another member of the "well-regulated militia" with a few screws loose. If not, oppose, per Joseph2302. -- Sca (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are pretty clear this is comparable in nature to the Christchurch shooting, where the guy planned this online w/ info from radical Internet boards, made a manifesto, live streamed it, etc. . It is being investigated as a hate crime already. --M asem (t) 00:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The death toll is about a fifth of Christchurch, so it's not at that level of notability, nor does it have the international aspect that Christchurch has. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Joseph2302.... Im willing to reconsider if any major developments come to light that would warrent a blurb, but at this point it just feels like another run of the mill mass shooting in the USA4iamking (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I sure hope we're not so numb as to call this "run of the mill": “If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number,” the document says. “To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman.” – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most mass shootings are motivated by some kind of "out there" thoughts, shall we say... at this point that alone doesn't really make it stand out, especially while they are still unproven. 4iamking (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's probably a better way to say this, but racism against Black Americans isn't even that "out there". In the past century, decade or year, I'll bet far more white people committed racially motivated acts against black people than general Americans shot anyone. Am I wrong? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The beliefs aren't rational to the average citizen, thats what I'm saying with "out there". As for the other point, probably because racism is pretty wide-spread but I got no statistics and regardless it's not really a meaningful comparison to make. 4iamking (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's meaningful in the context of understanding whether a common occurrence coinciding with a more common viewpoint makes the whole package more blurbworthy or more common. To me, "preventing earthquakes" or "following the voices" is "out there" in an unusual way. White supremacy is out there in the "constant public awareness" sense. Anyway, not trying to "whitewash" or "bury" anything. If spotlighting a killer for sharing racist propaganda is that important to anyone here, not just Muboshgu, go for it. Sorry to catch you in the middle of this. You were mostly "just there". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How odd that I believe that an incident that is quite literally "in the news" with an updated article in postable shape should be featured at In The News. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you tried to explain how it wasn't "run of the mill" by citing the shooter's racist remarks, nevermind. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The motive is why this is "in the news" and not relegated to the back pages like the Milwaukee shootings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just opening Reuters or DR though I feel like this is a side story, even looking at the USA section right now its somewhat overshadowed by the abortion protests in Washington D.C. We probably are getting a bit numb to mass shootings in the USA, but I stick to my reasoning. 4iamking (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody died in the Milwaukee shootings. In my opinion, if ten people had, we'd be seeing a lot more news. This would include the usual rush to prominently speculate on any motive, based on any anonymous police source. These things are formulaic, if many die. Gun control debate is tomorrow, I'll decide then, thanks for clarifying your stance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thsi kind of mass-shooting has not been common this year. See List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 - this is the deadliest so far this year, and the only indiscriminate mass-shooting (the 2nd most deadly, 2022 Sacramento shooting, was a gang shootout. Others are similar, or domestic incidents, etc). There were quite a lot of these mass shootings in 2021 though, per List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021, but none seemed to be hate-motivated as this one is believed to be. Not sure if any of this makes a difference for people. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Procrastinating Reader. Swordman97  talk to me  00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the rest of the world wakes up. We're not a news ticker. We can afford to let this thing run a decent amount of time to determine if there's a consensus. --WaltCip- (talk)  00:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  This is a major event, apparently. Nythar (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mass shootings in the US occur with such a frequency that they are commonplace. I'd be more likely to support the addition of List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 as an Ongoing item, given that it is updated almost every day. Chrisclear (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support putting List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 in ongoing if this particular episode fails to achieve consensus; or when it rolls off if it does achieve consensus. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Widely reported on as a hate crime, making it comparable to Oak Creek, Isla Vista, Charleston, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, all of which were posted. Ionmars10 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While I am always reluctant to support posting American mass shooting incidents it is clear this is not a run-of-the-mill event. This is evidenced by the coverage given internationally - the shooting is currently the top story on France24, and is highly prominent on ABC News Australia. This does not tend to happen for mass shootings in the US these days. The motive of the gunman in committing this attack (as possible racially-motivated extremism/terrorism) is particularly of note. AusLondonder (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. While mass shootings in the United States are commonplace, those with double digit deaths (exclusive of the perpetrator) are significantly less so. That being said, the hate crime motive, which is increasingly being reported on as accurate, means it rises above the pseudo-random nature of American mass shootings which despite being tragic, are not ITN material. Posting would be in line with the previous hate crimes shootings listed by .  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the death toll, the livestreaming, the manifesto, the reported motive, all distinguish this and makes it stand out from the other mass shootings so far this year. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Front page news globally, and deadliest American mass shooting so far this year. Extra notability points for also being a hate crime. Honestly putting List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 in ongoing as suggested above is not such a bad idea. Davey2116 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is for events that are continuously taking place at the time not intermittent about to happen ones. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Authorities calling it a hate crime. 11 of 13 victims are black. Suspect citing the Great Replacement. Not just "any shooting".—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see why a mass shooting being racially motivated makes it more notable. It's not like racially motivated mass shootings are rare in the US, either. Banedon (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So last month. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Failed WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything in WP:ITNR is regular and not "rare". So what's your point?—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Common things are less notable. Agree? Banedon (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And currently posted are "common" events like successions, deaths, elections, and sporting events. Again, what's your point?—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Three of those are ITNR, apples and oranges. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OP opposes because it's not "rare". ITNRs are regular, and not rare. So quite relevant, unless the OP had said "Oppose, not ITNR".—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is Death, neither rare nor R. It's all about those unwritten death PAGs, case by case, we post like we feel. All the terrorism charges, hateful Internet histories and variously affected survivors are nothing without a death toll and whether we collectively (yet personally) deem it blurbworthy. Banedon says nay. I say wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's vote and not !vote?—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bingo! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I opposed because it's not notable. Read it again. I don't see why a mass shooting being racially motivated makes it more notable. Banedon (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's racially motivated, had a 180 page manifesto written with it and was live streamed. That doesn't happen everyday in the big cities, no? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of those pages are copypasta and the livestream had about 20 viewers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the attacker is most-likely an ordinary mentally-disturbed lone-wolf White male who mostly kept to himself and not in anyway linked to terrorism. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I was under the impression we generally blurbed major domestic terrorism shootings where the motive was obvious (i.e. Pittsburgh synagogue, El Paso). Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support speedy listing. I was actually looking for this article at main page and I am surprised that it is still not listed there. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mass shootings are common in the USA. This doesnt look any more notable from any other shooting Haris920 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * March's Las Tinajas massacre was a mass shooting with a death toll of double this. It was almost ignored; 99% of people have no idea that it happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was nominated but failed to be posted to do lack of article quality updates . And that article is still too short to be posted if it happened today. --M asem (t) 12:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due to the unusual racially-motivated angle. Article is good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Clear that it was racially motivated,   but since the perp apparently acted alone, its wider significance seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Front page news in countries outside North America. Part of the ongoing 2020–2022 United States racial unrest. W1lliam halifax (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * only since 2020? Feel like it's been going on longer than that. 4iamking (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the deadliest shooting in the US in 2022 and would've tied for deadliest in 2021 as well. Article in decent shape, shootings this deadly are rare enough to be reasonable to post. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Lone assailant, reducing its significance. Mass shootings in U.S. happen all the time. Like every past mass shooting, this will be forgotten and there will be no long-term significance. --WaltCip- (talk)  15:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like every past mass shooting, this will be forgotten and there will be no long-term significance. I don't think this one will be forgotten quite so soon. People still talk about the white supremacist shootings in Charleston, Pittsburgh, Poway, and El Paso. Terrorism is a lot more memorable than mental illness. Mlb96 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In this context that distinction seems somewhat blurred to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Which buffalo was shot?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dummy, it was Buffalo, NEW YORK, with an N. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due to the white supremacy connection, which is unusual for most U.S. mass shootings, as well as the double-digit death count. Mlb96 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Racially motivated shootings broadcasted to and fueled by online hate boards are not common anywhere. This is why its getting unusual attention than the others it is being compared to. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Blurb would ideally mention the manifesto or at least the shooter's beliefs, since that's a major part of what makes this ITN-worthy. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready. Discussion has been open for most of 24 hrs and consensus appears pretty solid (roughly 2:1). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is just another mass shooting which can be added to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. All such internal dialogue shootings are problematic, but endemic.  This is no surprise, not news that will linger beyond a few more headlines.  Racism in the US?  This has been going on forever.  And on top of that, while the US is now terrifyingly heading to a "pro-life" agenda, they're still arming everyone with a dollar to shoot anyone they like?  Bizarre in extremis.  Not newsworthy unless gun laws change in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Others note several recent mass shootings in the online racist vein, indicating this isn't unique, just a copycat. Still others note the casualties are far lower than in other "manifesto" cases. Biden has used it to push for police refunding and "unity" again, but not gun control, so legislative impact is unlikelier than usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Event is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  [redacted] --LaserLegs (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly comparable to publishing a 180 page justification for a crime to hate forums and livestreaming it therein. Gotitbro (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is just standard fare in America these days. It's equivalent to posting an ITNC for a bomb killing 60 people in Iraq.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 60 people dying in Iraq or anywhere would be notable for ITN with a good-enough article. Would rather not compare though as they are rather disparate. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a good look for us to say that a crazy can work their way onto ITN by being sufficiently prolix. WaltCip- (talk)  22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Though, that is what makes note in the news here along with the nature of the crime. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * [redacted] --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not make false claims of attribution of these types of things. There is no evidence that your claim is even close to the truth and it is pretty much inappropriate in this current context. --M asem (t) 23:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleting an opponent's argument as "pretty much inappropriate" is very fucked up in this context. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not redact the history, you can see what the comments were, which were 100% wrong in the context in attributing fault to a specific group for a different shooting, which is something inappropriate to bring to any discussion, much less this one, due to BLP-type concerns. I don't care what LL thinks but they should know better not to make those arguments. --M asem (t) 23:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They weren't 100% wrong. Maybe partially, subjectively. You could have redacted the specific group, if that's your problem. In context, it is safe to say we opposed the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack even though the attacker posted anti-White hate speech on social media before the rampage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that there was no evidence that that specific indiciate was racially driven, or that the attacked posted hate speech, which is still a BLP violation. That's the problem. --M asem (t) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the "evidence" in this case from yesterday is much more solid. Is that it? Hate crime is hate crime and BLPCRIME is colourblind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Numerous law enforcement authorities, newspapers, and appropriate social media companies have confirmed what the suspect yesterday was said to have posted online and thus the reason it has been classified as a hate crime. While the suspect in the other attack may have posted online things before, it was nothing taken as recent as the suspect from Buffalo, nor after the investigation was done was taken as reasons for the attack. It appears that only far/alt-right have wanted to push that the suspect in that older attack was racially motivated, based on the sources I'm finding now from groups like ADL, etc. So yes, what is redacted is very much in BLP problematic range, compared to confirmed evidence that has been linked between what was posted recently and what happend in Buffalo directly in this case. --M asem  (t) 00:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first section in Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 5 contains many sources noting things believed to be written by the black suspect openly called for violence against old white people before he (allegedly) committed violence against old white people. Does that make them far-right? You'll probably say yes, but I say no. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The screen shot of Brooks' racist anti-white social media posts came via The Daily Mail so it was swept down the old memory hole even though it was re-reported by numerous WP:RS. At the time, it wasn't known that he was targeting people based on race. Looking back, we did post the 2016 BLM terror attack in Dallas with a mostly neutral blurb so if this were going to be posted it should be a similarly neutral blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, I forgot to tell Masem that Brooks' investigation isn't over, just stopped trending. We'll likely all hear both sides' reasons for the attack in the opening arguments of his October trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support after slashing my previous Wait !vote. This is beginning to look more like the Christchurch shooting than the average American shooting. In the news and well cited. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support With it on the news all weekend, I was surprised not to see it on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It only happened on Saturday afternoon, now the Laguna Woods church shooting just happened on Sunday afternoon; they all make instant news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The attack is notable for being the largest mass shooting in the US so far, and garnered headlines for being racially motivated. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean, so far, for this year, right? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- it's the headline story on bbc.com right now (that may be because I live in the US). Unlike other mass shootings, this one was racially motivated, making it both political and racial terrorism. It also appears that the shooter was radicalized online, which means that this is not solely the action of a mentally ill individual. That passes the bar for inclusion on ITN. We've also included mass shootings from other countries that included smaller death tolls than this. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings in other countries are less common than mass shootings in the United States, which explains why we are more likely to put them on ITN. Leaning oppose per --WaltCip-. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support - in terms of regularity and long-term wide impact, this is negligible. But it is headline news at least in English sources, I suppose. Juxlos (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Randy Weaver

 * Support Solid and decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can we have references for Randy's military awards listed at the end of the infobox, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai Done. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnote, Fakescientist8000. I don't know about ABTC.NG, but I will AGF that it's RS. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lil Keed

 * Support Article is well cited, looks long enough, and is generally issue free. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article and solidly referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: Sourcing in the Discography section is incomplete (e.g. for Mixtapes, only 2 out of 6 items have a footnote; for Guest appearances, seven of the final 8 entries have no footnotes.) Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Hirsch

 * Support Is the article long enough? Is it cited?  Is it issue free?  I'd say this wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Wald

 * Support Article is well cited, looks long enough, and is generally issue free. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Teresa Berganza

 * Support Is the article long enough? Is it cited properly?  Is it issue free?  This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Fakescientist800.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb: Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

 * Comment I'm modifying it to blurb as it's a world leader who dies in office. The article is fine, but the "Presidency" section should be expanded much more. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as the death of a current head of state with absolute power is a no-brainer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb, current head of state. The presidency section needs some work because it is composed of one-sentence paragraphs, and Wikileaks do not need a separate section. --Tone 11:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this one is a no-brainer.--Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 11:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb per Kiril. Grimes2 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we not wait for the new President to be appointed, would make it ITNR on its own. Gotitbro (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The presidency is hereditary Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case the successor should be included in the blurb and nom be changed to ITNR. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That'd make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the rulership of the emirate is hereditary, the presidency of the UAE is technically not. -- KTC (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @KTC You are correct. But the presidency is still controlled by the House of Al Nahyan. The crown prince just needs to be approved by parliament within 30 days of the president's death. Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Death of a very powerful head of state. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Major and monumental world leader. However, this would bump off the Saratoga explosion, so I have some personal bias. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle as death of incumbent head of state is ITN worthy. However, article has a couple of cn tags, and also, is there any information on what he did from 2014 to 2022? I know he reduced duties, but surely he did something in that period? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed was the de facto ruler of the UAE during much of that period.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, however as of now Oppose per Joseph2302. Article needs some work done on it before we can blurb it. After that, it's good to go! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Incumbent head of state dying is an automatic blurb support in my opinion. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He's a head of state who died in office. Notable.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A cautionary note: for these heads of state that are hereditary, I would not expect death while holding office to be as surprising as compared to death of an elected official, since the transfer of power is very much established already. Queen Elizabeth will remain Queen until her death, even though her duties may be passed to her heir (like right now as with her COVID conditions). --M asem (t) 14:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb in current state. I see no clear explanation on the article to explain why he was so influential (beyond being rich) or transformative. I'm not saying that he wouldn't qualify but I have to read between the lines and understand the larger picture to say, "Oh yes, he's clearly important". There should be something of a legacy section or the like to be clear about this. --M asem (t) 13:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Important head of state CR-1-AB (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, A powerful president and notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Old man dies of no apparent cause. Largely ceremonial, not powerful, since 2014. Rich, and bought things, but transformed little. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it in the most minimalist description, you can make anything seem lame. I'll have you know that for 55.56% of his presidency, he had full powers and was an incredibly powerful man in the Middle East. Just because he wasn't escalating wars, massacring innocent civilians, or having massively cheated out of his taxes doesn't make him "largely ceremonial", especially considered he'd ruled for 18 years. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, what did he do? Before having the stroke his bio says left him ceremonial and Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan powerful, I mean. You can't just assume it's obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my issue. I can sorta see why he's important but the article fails to clearly establish this and we should not blurb this sub-quality aspect. --M asem (t) 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, have you seen the minimalism in preceding descriptions? Powerful president, notable, major and monumental. I consider mine relatively chunky. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only Was little more than a figurehead for the past ten years. ITN seems a little much.Pyramids09 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only. Article is of sufficient quality, however nothing is gained by a blurb, except noting his age of death.  Meh.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Death of a sitting head of state is notable, but for a hereditary position it is far less so due to the much higher likelihood that it happens. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Death of a very influential hereditary head of state. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD only A blurb adds nothing at all. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only. We only post the most important deaths, and this is a WP:MILL local tyrant of which few people globally will have heard.  Sandstein   18:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tyrant? That is definitely stretching a "point". Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, because a person with many countries that has set a national mourning in honor of him, 2 of which include India and Pakistan, means 'few people globally will have heard'. Prodrummer619 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Added an altblurb but can't add an altimage, so it maybe needs a new nom, and I won't do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Bigger story should be new head of state, not death of former one. The Kip (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we can combine the two. -- KTC (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added alt2. -- KTC (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I have crossed out the new guy becoming President of UAE as it appears that has not happened yet. -- KTC (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a subtle difference between becoming and already being, but whatever, I deleted mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2&mdash;The longtime head of state of the UAE, a very influential nation-state in world affairs. Kurtis (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD Only Per DarkSide830; No reason for a blurb, especially when the death was of natural causes. I dont think a blurb adds anything. 4iamking (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - We can RD now. Discussion of blurb can continue. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, discussion can continue. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - Mohammad bin Zayed's presidency has been officially announced https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/sheikh-mohamed-bin-zayed-elected-president-of-the-uae Prodrummer619 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to Blurb combined with new president on the basis of ITNR now that's confirmed. -- KTC (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gino Cappelletti

 * Ref improvements needed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Working on it, slowly. Little sleep, jet lag is no fun. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above Support !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suzi Gablik

 * Support Fine. Grimes2 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine, nothing bad but nothing amazing either. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister in Sri Lanka

 * Support and combine with earlier nom/blurb of 2022 Sri Lankan protests. The Kip (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Gotabaya Rajapaksa's move is more like a political ploy to save his family members, Mahinda and Namal from the possible arrests for inciting violence rather than a genuine bona fide response to the political crisis. So change the wording "Amidst a political crisis and protests, Ranil Wickremesinghe (pictured) is appointed as the new Prime Minister of Sri Lanka." So we won't pass a judgement on GR's intentions. <b style="color: SteelBlue;">Chanaka L</b> ( talk ) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, cheers! BastianMAT (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose All the bolding and pictures in the world won't outemphasize the fact that there's an orange-tagged article porkbarreled into this proposition which is already under review by a separate committee (and that tacked-on PM article's tag could easily turn orange). Maybe when it gets better, it can be Ongoing. But this isn't the proper subvenue to decide that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (The crisis article was replaced by the protests article, slightly fixing the tag colour problem but slightly worsening the double nomination problem; one of these sections should be closed, at least.) InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the title suggests, this nomination is based on the new prime minister but with the context of the protests. Have expanded and fixed the article. BastianMAT (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still templated for lack of copyediting, has tags for needed citations and is essentially nominated below. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as Ranil Wickremesinghe needs significant sourcing improvements. If fixed, then would support posting this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanded and sourced the article. BastianMAT (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape, topic is covered by reliable news sources. Checks all boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - the earlier nomination below about the PM's resignation should have already been posted but it was shot down until a new PM comes in, so here it is. Now we are seeing opposition for some minor issues. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per User:Jayron32 and User:Hindustani.Hulk. Also support adding the protests to Ongoing as there are lots of developments and the article is kept up to date.–Jiaminglimjm (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: The Mahinda Rajapaksa article has a few {cn} tags and a few footnote-free paragraphs. The Ranil Wickremesinghe article has an orange {criticism} tag, a {cn} tag and a few footnote-free paragraphs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , should be good now, have fixed both of articles, so they are well sourced, so it is finally ready! BastianMAT (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, BastianMAT. I didn't look through everything (two very long wikibios!), but I can see three {cn} tags in Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the numbers in Ranil Wickremesinghe need references. --PFHLai (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! BastianMAT (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BastianMAT. Looking good. --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Sagittarius A*

 * Support on principle but article(s) need updating first. -- KTC (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to do this we need to update the article and upload the photo. At the moment the photo source does not provide a clear indication of copyright status. They actively encourage people to download and save the photos (copy), but the page has a standard copyright notice.  We may need to contact them and get that clarified. If somebody knows what copyright permission to use, I am happy to upload the images immediately. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The M87* permission went through VRT. I imagine someone need to contact them and ask likewise here. -- KTC (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I already emailed EHT. If I get a response, where do I learn about the process that I should follow (if you know)? Jehochman Talk 13:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, European Southern Observatory releases it under CC-BY-4.0 . -- KTC (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the altblurb. We should mention the Milky Way. This is the first detailed picture of the most massive object in our galaxy. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. This is important and interesting scientific news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral, pending advice of . InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question. How does this relate to an image that was photographed a couple of years ago? Same blackhole different picture? or is this a different one? Was that the big-deal because it was the first time we had imaged a blackhole and this the second time? Is this a different technology to photograph? Any additional details? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Different one. M87* was a big deal because it was the first time. This one (2nd time) is a big deal because this supermassive black hole is the one at the centre of our own galaxy. -- KTC (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one was or is several hundred thousand times bigger, though, at least by my supershaky grasp of this list of most massive black holes. As a Milky Way native, I appreciate your point. But, objectively, is our black hole better in any physical way? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Veritasium has a pretty digestible visualization of how they relate to each other size-wise. Can't really argue that ours is better, but it is ours... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother! I mean, doctor. They sure are both awfully blurry from afar, though... InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the video Dr. Duh! Support posting. I know some might say this is the second image etc. but, I think it is worth posting. Ktin (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs ref work. When this is addressed then I'd support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, relevant news. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While interesting science news it has little long term importance, and given that Webb is due for first light soon, rather me sure we are ready for that ITNR event. --M asem (t) 18:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Science has extremely long term importance. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So does art, but that doesn't mean every subsequent auction, unearthing or burning inherits that broad sweeping generalization. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. But that really is not the point I was making. Polyamorph (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for misunderstanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tk add this really isn't all that easily digestible as a picture to a causal reader. I know the difficulties and enhancements needed to acquire this but it still looks like a blurry UFO photo, and if that's what is being pushed for the news aspect, its not a strong rationale. --M asem  (t) 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, supermassive news. Article has plentiful references. Polyamorph (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge achievement. Schierbecker (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the alt blurb. Rarely are we able to get a photo of fabulous breaking news, so that absolutely deserves a spot on the front page. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The ability to get the photo is the breaking news here. What it depicts (to some degree) has been going on every day for billions of years. Not saying it's not a fabulous release, mind you, it might be! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is difficult to argue the first glimpse of the centre of our own galaxy is not notable. Ivan (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to argue, though, I'd note this event doesn't have a standalone article like notable ones do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is undeniably a huge step forward for astronomy and our understanding of our galaxy and universe, id say thats big news. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Question How is this earlier image of the same hole not way better? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I'm no expert, but to quote the article (although it probably needs rephrasing because of this new image):
 * "Astronomers have been unable to observe Sgr A* in the optical spectrum because of the effect of 25 magnitudes of extinction by dust and gas between the source and Earth."


 * So, that older image doesn't show the black hole itself, but other things in that direction in the sky. Look at the image full-size and you'll see a circle noting the location of the black hole -- one that's so miniscule as to be invisible at thumbnail size. More theatrical, I suppose, but only helpful in the same way a pin in a map is useful. And seeing as how this nomination is directly about the image in question, it would be bizarre to me not to then use said image. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The new one is definitely the only good one for the nom. And I guess a wider absence of colour is better, if black holes are to be observed at all. But there are several images in that article, a few claimed or suggested to be the first. I give up. Space is hard! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- definitely notable as the first true color observation of our galaxy's black hole. Also, in the immortal words of the Space Core from Portal 2: SPAAACEEEEEE.--  Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, please note that the image has been generated using radio telescopes, so it can be said that the color assigned is arbitrary. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support this black hole (likely) gave birth to our galaxy. Without it there would be no Sol, no Earth, and no humans trying to take a picture of it. 2A02:2F0B:B407:BD00:4493:FB9D:1CEC:F520 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of consensus, an orange-tagged sourcing problem will not be posted to the ITN. That needs to be fixed first., --M asem (t) 22:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Masem I believe I've fixed the most pressing sourcing issues and have removed the tag. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A few references are still needed for some paragraphs. Stephen 02:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, it seems that the missing references issues have been fixed. Someone please update the picture. --Tone 06:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Southeast Asian Games

 * Oppose this event has 11 participating nations, and so is not an important enough sporting event to warrant being posted. For comparison, the 2022 Commonwealth Games, which is listed on WP:ITNR, has 72 nations. And we don't list the start of other regional sports events either, for the same reason. Finally, being postponed due to COVID-19 isn't a reason to post this onto ITN either, as so many sports events have been postponed for the same reason. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair, only 59 have confirmed attendance and many of those "nations" are tiny non-sovereign territories such as Montserrat (pop 4,649), Niue (pop 1,620) and Norfolk Island (pop 1,748). It seems odd that we consider the Commonwealth Games ITN/R when the games had 4,426 participants in 275 events in 18 sports at the 2018 Commonwealth Games but not the Southeast Asian Games which will have 5,467 participants in 526 events in 40 sports. We also exclude the Jeux de la Francophonie which had 4,000 participants at the 2017 Jeux de la Francophonie. Seems like a case of Systemic bias. AusLondonder (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does a bit, doesn't it? (though only 11 competing nations does make it sound not-massively-important, and one could argue that the vast majority of the Commonwealth nations are outside Europe and NA). Personally, I wouldn't have the Commonwealth Games on ITNR either, but that might just be me. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to me a reason to not include the Commonwealth Games, not a reason to include the South East Asian Games. Don't see significant coverage of this event to warrant ITN posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How many participating nations are there in the Super Bowl that we post? Stephen 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * uhhhhhhhh, Bangladesh? And I guess la is it’s own nation, so Cheers. Wime  Pocy  11:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine to me. Prose is sufficient, it is well referenced, etc. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Agreed with the discussion above that there is no reason to exclude this item from ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Bennett (flautist)

 * Comments: The Personal life section needs sources for the few lines on his two wives and three kids. The Awards section could use a re-organization. --PFHLai (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I said above, no? I still have no time to search, a concert later. RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your concert, Gerda. I was just specifying two minor things to fix, hoping someone would stroll by and fix them. No rush... --PFHLai (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 has fixed the citation issues in the Personal life section. This wikibio is long enough (700+ words), has no glaring issues with formatting and footnote deployment, and is deemed READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready to go. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. Thanks to for the incredible work. May this wonderful musician rest in peace. Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  (please use&#32; on reply&#59; thanks!) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John L. Canley

 * Support OK. Grimes2 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexander Toradze

 * Support. Seems to be well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gloria Parker

 * Support A household name from a distant past when women weren't supposed to be cool but swing music somehow was, no glaring problems, maybe subtle misreflections. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sukh Ram

 * Comment: Needs cleanup/copyediting, referencing, and expansion to describe what Ram did in those roles, not just election results and a list of jobs.  Spencer T• C 03:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I misjudged my availability for this week. Will not be able to get to editing this article in time. If others want to jump along in fixing the article please feel free to do so. Thanks. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Shireen Abu Akleh

 * Support RD Article looks fine for RD, but it shouldn't be a blurb. Journalists around the world are killed every day, and we don't post those because it'd merely clog up the ITN section. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article looks good. Another victim of Israeli terrorism. CR-1-AB (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD good to go. There are exactly zero RS who support that the journalist's death is due to "Israeli terrorism". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the other users stating roughly that previously vandalized WP:Israel calling for its removal as Israel "doesn't exist," so unfortunately the bias is inherent here.
 * That said, there's a high probability she was killed by the IDF, especially given that AJ (usually an RS) themselves are saying so as well as eyewitnesses. "Terrorism" is a strong word, and probably not correct, but at the same time it's an occupying army intentionally or unintentionally killing an unarmed journalist. There's no real way to sugarcoat it other than as state violence. The Kip (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support RD – Very widely covered, almost – but not quite – to the point of being blurbable. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Extensive coverage by multiple agencies. Article seems fine. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Significant but not blurb-worthy. Our comments should focus on the article quality, which from a very quick glance looks alright to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Extensive coverage and the article is in good shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Yet another instance of the Israeli occupation forces murdering a journalist in cold blood for no reason other than them not liking what she said DzhungarTroll (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD - article looks good to go. notable death.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Note if anyone does want to see if consensus for a blurb will form they can do so here, but a specific blurb will need to be proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support per above. Murdered by the IDF. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Warning This is controversial topic. Several personal attacks have already been reverted.  Further personal attacks will be met with blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So much for the freedom of speech. DzhungarTroll (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @DzhungarTroll read Free speech. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb If we can keep personal bias out of the way for a minute (which it's clear that several can't), while her death is horrible there are (sadly) dozens of journalists murdered every year; last year's total of 46 was the lowest since 2003. We shouldn't and can't blurb every single one. The Kip (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as per, there are dozens of journalists who die each year. We shouldn't blurb one of them. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This one involved notable circumstances. Coverage continued Thursday.   -- Sca (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree, but most journalist killings don't get this amount of global attention in the news. The circumstances here (and reaction to the killing) stand out and go beyond just "journalist is killed". 4iamking (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like it may be fair to infer that the global coverage, state funeral, and so on is primarily driven by the Israel-Palestine conflict being a hot-button, click-generating topic as opposed to the actual unique circumstances of death, which should be the primary motivator behind a blurb. It’s just my opinion, but in order for a journalist death to be blurbed it’s gotta be something like the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, which was especially notable due to a powerful state committing a premeditated, planned-out kidnapping and murder on foreign soil. While Abu Akleh was most likely killed by Israeli forces, based on available info I highly doubt it was premeditated/planned, and she was killed during a raid with an inherent degree of danger existing (as opposed to a kidnapping, sudden out-of-the-blue attack, or something else of the sort). Again, just my opinion, her death was horrible as is the occupation, but the circumstances don’t meet notability standards for a blurb.
 * Additionally, from the way several users have reacted, it’s pretty clear there’s some support here based off of personal views/bias, as opposed to simply neutral Wiki standards. I’m not sure if we can count those votes on merit. The Kip (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. This is not "just another journalist killing". She has been accorded a state funeral, which is not at all common for killed journalists. The strong international reactions to her death, from Middle East, the West and rest of the world also suggest this is a significant event.VR talk 16:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb, something along the lines of Shireen Abu Akleh, a veteran al-Jazeera correspondent, was killed in Jenin while covering an Israeli raid. Think both the circumstances and the personality, one of the Arab world's most famous journalists, merit a bit more than listing in RD. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb I was hesistant at first, having no idea who she was. The more I read, the more I believe she was a legit TV news star, just in Arabic. This blurb certainly isn't about her age, however it's written. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And yeah, as a life story, her biography is a bit on the sparse side. But this hypothetical blurb seems a case of the death itself as the story, so it's almost fitting that the article leans accordingly. Expand the career section, but don't let it hold this back, I'll advise. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Usually I don't support journalist killings, but this one is more notable. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb ... for now ' – While I'm empathetic toward the subject, she was one person, and the story (now in its third cycle) seems to be getting hyped for political/ideological reasons. Also, the exact cause of death hasn't been officially determined yet. So I'm not convinced a blurb is appropriate at this pt. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * agree. opposing blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * She was shot once in the head. That's cause enough, and the bullet is identified. If you mean the perpetrator hasn't been determined yet, fair enough, but that hasn't stopped previous shooting blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Only because of the circumstances of her death and the massive amount of diplomatic/international media attention this is getting, including from the UN security council. This goes beyond the average journalist that gets killed in the line of duty.4iamking (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb After today's events. Starting to look less and less like just any other death of a journalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Per previous. The UN Security Council's call Friday for an for "immediate, thorough, transparent, and fair and impartial investigation" gives us something definite to hang our hat on. Alt 1 offered above. Coverage continued Saturday.  — Sca (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not thriled with alt 1, there should be a better way of saying there was widespread outrage/condemnation of her death including from the UN SC. It's not just the UN SC but the total of that triggering this as a blurb. --M asem (t) 14:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We could insert 'controversial' before 'slaying,' but in a blurb we can't do detail on 'widespread outrage.' Alt 1 already has the same total of words (29) as the Mohamed bin Zayed blurb, which given his mere pro forma significance looks overweight. But as a topic Abu Akleh is far more significant & interesting, so one more word would be OK. -- Sca (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is too much to this story that makes it hard to condense into 1 blurb (also taking into account the protests/violence at the funeral yesterday), and I hesitate to think that the UNSC resolution is the only reason why this would be blurb worthy (rather because of a consensus of international outrage which the UNSC is part of), nor is the UNSC the only one to call for an investigation, for that reason I think I prefer the original blurb. I agree though that this is way far more significant than Mohamed bin Zayed. That being said the unanimous UNSC resolution is noteworthy on its own right too. 4iamking (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this topic has been very prominently in the news for four days, It would seem that a simple blurb about the UN Security Council statement would be sufficient for ITN -- although as noted above we could (and probably should) put "controversial" before "slaying." This story is not going away anytime soon. -- Sca (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the original. For the same reason, plus an uneasiness with blurbing words over actions, truncated or not. "Slaying" suggests a blade was used, too, at least to me; regardless, "shot and killed" is unambiguous. (UTC)InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Her being shot and killed is old news. -- Sca (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2022
 * And her slaying somehow isn't? Both sparked the newer news. I've blended them somewhat to that effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb There is clearly worldwide attention, especially after additional violence at her funeral. W1lliam halifax (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 16:28? -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt2 – This shooting isn't "sparking international investigation" yet; so far there's only been a UN call for one. AFAIK there's no word on who or what agency would investigate. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're overlooking the coroner, IDF and many reporters' investigations. The "immediate" ones (so-called by three notable multinational groups in the article alone) are already sparked and heating up, just not blazing yet. Many agencies are committed to helping. Anyway, don't quotes need inline attribution? And what's wrong with 16:28? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that so? -- Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, read her Death section, it says "investigation" almost more than "death" itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Very perspicacious. -- Sca (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Lanier

 * Comment There are two unreferenced paragraphs in the "College career" section. Otherwise, the article is good.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , all cited now. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support OK, but one dead link. Grimes2 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonid Kravchuk

 * support blurb if he was a regular run of the mill president of the us he would have been blurbed, and he was his country's first internationally recognized independent leader, so i support blurb    DzhungarTroll (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not necessarily, but the timing is interesting since its literally been a week since Stanislav Shushkevich passed, and we didn't blurb him (or even give him a RD), He was the last one of the 3 presidents who signed the Belovezh Accords still alive. (the 3rd one being Boris Yeltsin ofc.). He's definitely notable but the article needs to be updated to get rid of tags first. 4iamking (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb First president isn’t the same as a founder of a country. He’s definitely not what was Muhammad Ali Jinnah for Pakistan or Habib Bourgiba for Tunisia, and I don’t think that even Ukrainians consider him as such.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not Jinnah or Bourgiba because of how Ukrainians perceive power (although Viacheslav Chornovil is close. saying it as Ukrainian). Kravchuk was instrumental in shaping the modern democratic Ukrainian state (including rejection of nuclear weapons and transfer of power after free elections). Support the blurb in principle, once the article has enough references. --Andrei (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What he shaped has gone very long time ago, shortly after he lost to Kuchma in the 1994 election. I don’t underestimate his vision of a modern democratic country, but that’s something that literally never happened as Ukraine has been performing extremely low on the corruption and democracy rankings. So, if he wasn’t able to establish his ideals in practice, then he can’t be transformative enough to merit a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle Article doesn't have enough sources as its subject has just died. That's to be expected. Will get on this now. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb But the article needs to get some ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not much prominently in the RS news. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , is it opposite day? All RS are covering this. BastianMAT (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. Eight of the links you posted are just AP copies. RD When Ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD once updated, Oppose Blurb In retrospect his accomplishments mirror Stanislav Shushkevich, who passed last week (Signing Belovezh Accords & overseeing Independence from the USSR, and giving in giving up the Nuclear arsenal.) It was pretty equovically argued last week that Sushkevich didnt merit a blurb because he was a leader for a short time between 1991-1994, and didnt do much as leader beyond overseeing independance and giving up nukes. I dont see a reason why the standard should be any different here.4iamking (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore the quality issues preventing the RD posting, Oppose blurb as the article fails to clearly establish what leadership or transformative role he had (such as a legacy section). I dunno if such a section can be made from what I read as this appears to be a rather mundane presidency. --M asem (t) 23:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb for same reasons as Shushkevich, was leader for only a short time and didn’t do much besides oversee independence. The Kip (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Just because he was president of Ukraine does not mean we should have a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * in fact the blurb is not being proposed "for being the president of Ukraine" but for being the first of the independent Ukraine and leading its independence...... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for exactly the same reasons as the former Belarusian leader last week i.e. not transformative enough person for it, in spite of being the first leader post-USSR. Also oppose RD for now, as article is orange-tagged. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only ... when up to snuff. Despite his historicity for Ukraine, Mr. Kravchuk doesn't appear to have been a particularly notable leader. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality—too much unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb He was the first president, but he isn't too notable of a figure to deserve a blurb - he was not particularly revolutionary as a world leader. Maykii (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have expanded and fixed the article. For people opposing the quality, take a look at it now.,, As there doesn't seem to be a consesus for a blurb, it should at least be RD ready now. I have therefore tagged it such. BastianMAT (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Awards section needs sources, please. --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , should be good now. Couldn’t find anything about those decorations so better removing it. Whole article is sourced now so good to go! BastianMAT (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shivkumar Sharma

 * Support I don't get why there's an empty "Notes" column in that table, and the image towards the end has such a long caption that it breaks into the references, but otherwise it appears satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good with enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robert Gillmor

 * Citations needed, and is that list of works still incomplete? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. More citations needed, please! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section on SWLA has no sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Blurb/Ongoing: 2022 Sri Lankan Protests

 * Comment as nom Article does need some work with orange tags. I will try to get that fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons I mentioned at, which applied to this article as well as the stub article. Wait until a new head of state is announced, and then post their article instead, as their article cannot surely be as poor as that orange tagged article. Also no idea why we needed to close one nomination for this and start a new one, when we could have just added alt blurbs to the previous nomination.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, once tags fixed, I see this more as an ongoing thing as it has been in the news repetitively for the last two months or so.4iamking (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This exact article got posted in April. Wait until a new president or prime minister is announced or until. As this has been going on for several months now and doesnt look like it will end anytime soon, we could possibly add this to ongoing. Haris920 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered. Bears watching. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (at this time). Article still needs a lot of work to be acceptable for linking to from the main page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Growing in notability/coverage by the day, but article needs work and precedent says this doesn't get posted until a new PM is selected. The Kip (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: maybe we should link 2022 Sri Lankan protests to ongoing? Just putting that out there as a potential option for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6CBF:620E:19:D622 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Continues to be widely covered Wednesday,   but resolution of the situation appears problematical. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely ITN Flameperson (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per 2600:6C44... Article is in good shape, is getting regular daily updates, and topic has remained in the news for an extended period of time.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing – Yeah, seems appropriate to the circumstances. If the situation becomes more violent, we still could blurbify it. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - Tags have to be removed (fix the issues the tags state first obviousy) CR-1-AB (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment adding additional ongoing nomination. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Should post blurb with update for new leader.  Spencer T• C 03:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still going on,   still unresolved. -- Sca (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing as we should post the change of head of state (once his article is fixed) instead. Many countries have protests, so no reason why we should have just this one in ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb noteworthy protests that have resulted in the removal of several government officials. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) May 2022 Sri Lankan unrest

 * This is too short to be posted. I recommend nominating 2022 Sri Lankan protests instead, even though it needs the orange tags to be resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose usually we post when a new leader is chosen, as head of state changes are ITNR. And neither of these articles is anywhere near acceptable for posting anyway- one is a stub, and one is orange tagged for original research. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait till a successor is chosen. Tube·of·Light 09:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article about the prime minister is fine, although it does need some citing work. The article about the unrest is absolutely unfathomable. 72 words only?? Come on now... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the article was nominate for deletion. (Articles for deletion/May 2022 Sri Lankan unrest)  HurricaneEdgar    10:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Leo

 * Comment: Lede needs a little work: first sentence doesn't really give an overview of whole career, and paragraph about U.S. News & World Report career doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article (should be moved to body and have a sentence in the lede perhaps? Once resolved, this will be good to go.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support.  Spencer T• C 02:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prizes

 * Support per nominator. Just went through and added a bunch more Wikilinks. Funcrunch (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Can there be another paper mentioned besides the Washington Post? It would be nice to recognize smaller outfits. Thriley (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The public service award is very widely regarded as the top prize, so I think it's the one we're obligated to go with. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added an alt about the real world's champion. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like there are non-journalism categories, which have no accompanying text. The amount of quotes clashes with WP:NOFULLTEXT.  See the discussions from 2021 and 2020. Joofjoof (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The descriptions accompanying each award are short enough to be acceptable, in my view, but that's something to take up on the article talk, a future GAN, or more generally WT:Awards, given that it's squarely within the norm of the area. On 2020/2021, those foundered mainly because the articles weren't developed quickly enough before they became stale. For this year, I added a reception section and expanded lead off the bat, so that should not be an issue, more akin to 2014. This may not be an FA but it's very much complete enough to be ready and useful for readers coming from ITN. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this nom is going to end up declared stale soon as well, pity... Funcrunch (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:PRIZE, WT:Journalism. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 18:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment The Reception section could use a second or third observer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I just added a remark and note about a revamped category for this year's awards. Funcrunch (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I just clicked your thank button. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At three now. has no thank button. So just kudos! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Midge Decter

 * Support Looks ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Qin Yi

 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Is the article cited? Is it long enough?  Is it issue free?  This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John H. Coates

 * Support Each section sourced, 450+ words , style . Grimes2 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: It's odd that the death is cited to the DPMMS website, dated 6 days before his death. If this ref is removed, then his tenure as head of DPMMS from 1991 to 1997 will need a new source. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Now fixed. No worries. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Amarakeerthi Athukorala

 * Oppose Nominator's comments are pretty much the whole stubby story. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same reason as IH. Article contains basically no info besides circumstances of death. The Kip (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adreian Payne

 * Support. It seems ready to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: The infobox mentions that the subject was Pro A champion and French Cup winner in 2019, but the prose only mentions the signing with a French team, with no mention of playing basketball in France. Also, the prose has no mention of "Fourth-team Parade All-American (2010)", which is also in the infobox. Please add. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , both added to prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new prose. --PFHLai (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Philippine presidential election

 * Wait the ballot counting still ongoing (partial/unofficial) ABS-CBN Halalan also, there is no sourced if Marcos Sara elected as president and vice president of the philippines.  HurricaneEdgar    00:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per HurricaneEdgar. Marcos is projected to win but it's not official. Post when the full results are out. Mtcat101 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait as results are partial and unofficial. Itsquietuptown  ✉️📜 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait -- but also, isn't this WP:ITNR? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The change of president is, the change of vice president is not (still might be considered on its own unpresumed significance). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've converted this to an ITNR nomination. Tube·of·Light 04:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, but will change to support once full results are in and confirmed. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. The results are partial and unofficial as of now. Support once the election report reaches 100%. KTerPalmers (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added another altblurb2. KTerPalmers (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment we don't normally post vice-presidents, usually just the president. All of these blurb suggestions are very long and so will take up lots of space in the ITN box. Shouldn't we just post the president, like we do for all other head of state changes? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The target article is named for the presidential election, but its lead immediately widens the scope, so that's a very hard question. The peripheral article on the president has (proportionately) fewer unsourced paragraphs than the less important office's article, so ignoring the latter would improve the post as a whole. Whether we want to link inferior unbolded articles is another tough question. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, my complaint is listing the vice-president in the blurbs. A shorter blurb like Bongbong Marcos (pictured) is elected President of the Philippines (with appropriate wikilinks) would be better in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You were clear. I like your idea of better. But as currently written, the presidential election article is effectively about both elections, could complicate matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait On President, per R. The election of a clear and present dictator's daughter/colonel/"favorite child" to an office of lesser supposed power isn't covered, even if it does seem free and fair. To make exceptions for two women immediately surrounding the firm rejection of a roughly iffy man could seem sexist, Sinophobic or even unreasonably arbitrary. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait ... for full results. But we certainly aren't going to call him "Bongbong," as all RS sources describe that as a nickname. This isn't the Tagalog Wikipedia. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia recognizes that as his WP:COMMONNAME, and I think it's cool, so be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sca You're just jealous you didn't think of making your name Bongbong, aren't you? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm planning to change it to Scandia, which has a lot more euphony. "Sca!" sounds like someone trying to herd cats – or to manage ITN mavens here. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have posted names that are "odd" to native English speakers before, so I don't see why we should replace Bongbong with Ferdinand when he is better known by the unofficial name. Tube·of·Light 02:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because encyclopedic style doesn't identify subjects by nicknames in first mention. (Cf. "Hurricane" Carter). – Sca (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Punch Imlach, Rocky Johnson, Bong Revilla, Elizabeth II, Cher. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scooter Libby! Honk honk! Howard the Duck (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Howard the Duck's official surname isn't in his lead at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If Bongbong isn't his name why is that our article title? It wouldn't make sense to use a different name in the blurb to the one used for his own article. AusLondonder (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you guys willing to post Philippine elections in two separate days? The legislative elections also happened, and are also ITNR. The official winners for the Senate may be known early next week, before the presidential winner is officially known. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support the results section continues to need prose. I would exclude from the blurb any mention of the vice president, as it's not ITNR and should not be, as well as the result to the Senate. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Legislative elections -- which include the Senate -- are ITN/R. Official results are expected to be known by the weekend. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, what is ITNR, to my understanding, are elections of semi-executive heads of state or heads of executive governments when they are either directly elected, or indirectly elected in a parliamentary system. It's not the role of the Kongreso. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How are presidential systems handled? Are legislative elections in presidential systems no longer ITNR? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting now. The landslide election results are not in doubt and the other candidate, Leni Robredo, acknowledged that. CNN says that "Official results, however, could take weeks to be confirmed." We should not wait weeks for the slow bureaucratic process to be completed here. For U.S. elections we post them to ITN without waiting for the official certification to be completed, which typically also takes weeks. Regarding the name: All of the English language sources that I have seen refer to Marcos as "Ferdinand Marcos Jr." These sources mention that he is known in the Philippines by the nickname "Bongbong" but don't themselves refer to him that way. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should also refer to him as "Ferdinand Marcos Jr" in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In U.S. English, Jr takes a period (Jr.). -- Sca (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk92. However maybe the blurb should mention he is the son of the former dictator? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The old first lady did most of that work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt say that is relevant to the article. Haris920 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Support now that results are formally confirmed. The Kip (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support given the insurmountable lead in the 98% count, and that most sources now call him the presumptive president-elect. Itsquietuptown  ✉️📜 05:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Itsquietuptown since there is a source call Marcos and Sara as presumptive president and presumptive vice president.   HurricaneEdgar    08:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there is no clear consensus to include the vice president-elect. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to adjust. For Biden, we mentioned Harris as well. Tone 12:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden and Harris (as is the American way) were much more conjoined. Same party, same campaign, same votes. Different sort of "running mates" here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – "Bongbong" Marcos – embarrassingly louche. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: The world's largest news org. still refers to him in first mention as Ferdinand Marcos Jr. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike Wikipedia, it also has a habit of and possibly vested interest in emphatically introducing him as the late dictator's son. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Fred Ward

 * Support, a journeyman. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose has too many footnote-free paragraphs. The four bullet-points in the Awards section lack references. The Filmography table is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 British Academy Television Awards

 * Oppose Could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but as it stands only the Emmys are considered ITN/R as a TV award. The Kip (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only It's not ITN/R, however we did post it last year (discussion). Oppose at moment though, as there's no prose on the ceremony and it's undersourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose BATA are not listed in the In the news/Recurring items — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough prose or sources. I'm also not convinced these awards are notable or internationally-relevant enough to be included in ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing plenty of coverage on the US side of the pond of these from the expected places (Variety, Hollywood Reporters, etc.) --M asem (t) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Would full support if the article was improved. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Any oppose just because it is not ITN/R will, as always, be simply ignored. Recurring events that are not listed there are judged on their own merits (or how do you expect they would ever get posted enough to be listed at ITN/R). This was posted last year after there was a prose update. for Americans that don't know BATAs have comparable international considerations, renown, and history as the Emmys, though I didn't think I would actually need to explain it since it gets international and even some American media (as averse as it is to show things that would defy American exceptionalism) attention. As has been explained in previous years, posting the Emmys does not prevent posting the TV BAFTAs; we do post the Oscars and Film BAFTAs. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not American and I oppose posting this. The issue of what has been designated at some time as ITN/R is irrelevant (personally I would support a large cull of ITN/R). I have seen relatively little coverage outside the UK and the article is still not suitable for inclusion quality-wise. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, your !oppose wasn't just "isn't ITN/R", or "seems unimportant", so? Though another comment could be that if you are saying an international award show isn't significant, maybe give some thoughts on why. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way is this an "international" awards show? Because they have an international programme award? AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kingsif: In fairness to AusLondonder, neither of their comments !opposed this because it "isn't ITN/R" at all. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So why they felt the need to reply to a comment not directed at them... Kingsif (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed that any oppose !votes on the basis of not being ITN/R should be summarily ignored by a posting admin given that the BAFTAs were posted last year. A local consensus exists to post this item as long as this meets quality standards, which admittedly based on past experience, can be a high bar for award show articles to meet.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, however agreeing with WaltCip and Kingsif in that any oppose !votes on the basis of not being ITN/R should be ignored by the posting admin. Article does need work, though. Ping me when everything's been fixed. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been updated in line with other instances of the event (including last year's, which was posted). Since they asked, pinging . Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While awarded by the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts), they are not as notable as their film awards nor has their noteworthiness been demonstrated in the articles herein. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how one set of awards from a body is less notable within its field than another set of awards from the same, but both are considered in the majors in their fields, and to me the meaning of "not as notable" at your link is referring to television being less glamorous than film in general. Kingsif (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also generally cheaper to produce, less likely to hit shelves and more constantly running (the award-winning crap isn't general crap, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes there's some news about it, but that news level has reduced massively in the last 24 hours. Not important enough for ITN in my opinion (and before anyone says anything, I'm British, so it's not just North Americans opposing this). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The fast drop in coverage for any award show is that way, unless you have something that falls into celeb gossip as the Wil Smith thing was this year at the Oscar's. This us a poor reason to oppose. --M asem (t) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because it is not in ITNR, and it is not as notable as the Emmys. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahendra Raj

 * Support Article looks good. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this article well cited? Is it long enough?  Is it issue free?  That means that this article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Waterman

 * Oppose there are still quite a bit of CN tags that need to be addressed. Cheers. WimePocy 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , the tags have now been removed and sourced.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Still major unsourced content in the filmography and discography sections. Please fix them. Cheers. WimePocy 18:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In the last hour alone, multiple sources have been added and a clean-up has been done.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until "Career" section is correctly referenced. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support no issues.  SN54129  12:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support More than good enough Spicemix (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(attention needed) New Chief Executive of Hong Kong

 * Oppose as since not ITNR and we have this "Lee was the only candidate and won with over 99% of the vote in which nearly all 1,500 committee members were carefully vetted by the central government in Beijing." I dont think we really can call this an election. --M asem (t) 12:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. Not significant. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Results section needs prose. And if we are willing to include subnational elections, we must believe it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending update needs a results paragraph otherwise it's fine. Hong Kongs special status has been a focus of attention for decades and this election is a significant part of that saga. While some individuals like to pick and choose which elections are deemed "legitimate" that's outside the scope of ITN. Is it in the news and is there a quality update? If yes to both then up it goes. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support going off of my own consensus, like the Turkmeni election earlier this year and the Northern Ireland election just yesterday. Article needs prose updates, however. HK's autonomy has been a growing issue for quite some time now, much like Northern Ireland, and even though this isn't a totally free and fair election, it still is the changing hands of a government. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A rubber stamp election with only 1 candidate is not really significant compared with the recent one in NI.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support we posted Northern Ireland even though it was subnational because it had "worldwide coverage" and are not posting Hong Kong? That's got double standards written all over it, sorry. Banedon (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NI was an actual election, this was effectively a formality. The Kip (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * its still an election, even if the electorate is pretty restrictively defined. 4iamking (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per 4iamking, and if you really believe this was a formality then I suggest changing the article's title to something else. Banedon (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posting one sub-national election ≠ automatically posting all others. Regardless of that fact, this event can hardly be classified as an election (perhaps a coronation?). According to the first sentence of our Election article "An election is a formal group decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual or multiple individuals to hold public office." I think the bit about population choice has been missed in this "election". AusLondonder (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose wording Not an election in any sense of the word (other than PR/propaganda purposes). Abcmaxx (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was indeed an election. Just involving a closed, inner circle, making a decision that impacts on the community outside the circle. A very limited democracy. Just look at the news as one about a change in leadership. --PFHLai (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and if the opposers have any validity to their argument they'll nominate a move at the article talk page where it'll die a quick death because they're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason the Northern Ireland one was posted was not because it was just an election, but because it was an unusual result in a sub-national election (the first time Sinn Féin took majority control). There is nothing of significance of the result of this election here. --M asem (t) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't care HK vs NI I just care about claiming it wasn't an election. If that's your beef, get the article moved. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from forum shopping. We are capable of evaluating the legitimacy of the election here. Editors contributing to a move discussion would have no greater skill or credibility in addressing the question.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support an alt blurb alt2 Based on the news coverage and significance of further police crackdowns, this should be posted. But, main blurb is POV in what it fails to convey. NYT: John Lee Wins Hong Kong's Rubber-Stamp Election, BBC: Hong Kong's John Lee: Ex-security chief becomes new leader, CNA: Ex-security chief John Lee confirmed as Hong Kong's next leader. These headlines make it clear it wasn't a free and open election and we should post a blurb that does similarly. I'm less impressed with AP, NPR headlines. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't post those as blurbs either because those are also POV statements. We can't right great wrongs at ITN, and given the questionability about this as a sub-national election that we don't post normally, we can avoid the mess about this. --M asem (t) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm not suggesting RGW, I'm suggesting accuracy. Calling this an "election" implies democracy and that's misinformation in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the word "election" requires it to be "fair", that's the democratic/Western interpretation of the word. Hence still a RGW issue. --M asem (t) 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt2 is worded well. It is neither trying to topple the CCP nor is it suggesting that this was an "election" in the way we typically think of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Secession of sub-national leaders should only be posted in the most exceptional circumstances.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there previous precedent for previous Chief Executive elections? None of them are really democratically elected, I could see the 2017 one being posted because of the campaign possibly, but no Beijing-chosen candidate has ever really gone below fifty percent in one of these because of how they are conducted. Regardless, relying on precedent could potentially yield a consensus or at the very least contextualize the potential decision being made here? Ornithoptera (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , the 2017 election was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any word about the one before that? Was CY Leung's election posted as well? If the precedent is met I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to do so, but I'm neutral on the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2012 election wasn't nominated – Muboshgu (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current blurb is inappropriate; it should say he was appointed, not elected. The article has similar issues, but once both of those are corrected I would support posting this. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If a Montenegrin getting the nod from 46 people is an election, I see no reason a Hong Konger's approval by 1,416 (30 times more) is an appointment. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Montenegrin you are referring to, but reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times have described this as an appointment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dritan Abazović, the third bolded item in the ITN box. Both of those sources also use "election" or "elect". I think when someone is appointed following an election they won, we can safely consider them elected. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He was elected by a democratically elected parliament. However, that isn't the event we are discussing; this one is described by reliable sources as an appointment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, an appointment resulting from an election by a larger, less Westernized and just as lawful body. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you conflating democratic institutions with the "West" and by extension non-democratic institutions with the "east"? India is the largest democracy in the world and would rarely be described as part of the West. AusLondonder (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of Indians wouldn't describe India as particularly democratic, either...  SN54129  14:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democracy Index classifies India as a flawed democracy, alongside the United States and much of Europe. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you were asking me, I just meant this particular communist Chinese committee is less Westernized than the Parliament of Montenegro; India and the United States are indeed relatively complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with appropriate clarification of the circumstances of the rubber stamp per alt or similar. Coups and fake civilian governments have been posted, this is similar Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt The Election Commission, described as an electoral college, should reasonably be expected to elect people, not appoint them. I get how this may not seem free and fair, relative to a race with two candidates, but that's life in China. No opinion on the original blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 While alt1 is perhaps excessively biased and makes assumptions on the organization of the election, we should also recognize that the 1. Lee was unopposed, and the vote was simply yes-no, and 2. the election was by a small body, rather than by members of the public, and 3. nomination of candidates was by the same body, and he had already received more than half of nominations. This entire process seems much more along the lines of, say, nomination and confirmation in the US Supreme Court. Sources such as my local Globe and Mail come to a similar conclusion. I have offered another alternate blurb which makes these two points clear in a more neutral and factual tone. Mdu02 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 as it explains that this was an uncontested election- which is one of the main focuses of news coverage on this "election" event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above, this does not look like an election. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 it is an election, even though it is uncontested. – robertsky (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an election. This is more of an administrative appointment. Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't turn this into your personal soapbox against Northern Ireland. Please strike your grossly inappropriate comment.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Hong Kong had a change of head of state, which is ITNR anyway. Whether it's a proper election or not in HK, it should be posted, as it's an ITNR event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * HK is not a sovereign nation, and thus does not qualify for that ITNR, just as the case with Northern Ireland. --M asem (t) 15:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some users had tried to point out that this should be treated the same as the recent Northern Ireland. I was trying to explain the why it's very different. Against? I don't see any indication that I have revealed my position on Northern Ireland at all, while using encylopaedic language. User:Joseph2302, Hong Kong is a region of China; it's not a state - which is a bigger issue than how the CE was chosen; but does impact the wording; I should have stressed that. NI is the exception, not the rule; I certainly don't advocate that every NI election is notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked attention results section has a prose update --LaserLegs (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since posts here are running 11-8 against at this pt., the Needs attention tag doesn't seem appropriate. Removed. – Sca (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your supervote is most appreciated, thanks Sca. I'm sure an uninvolved admin could have determined if the invalid WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes had merit and made a determination but your childishly simplistic WP:VOTE count is probably better. Maybe you should just close the nomination entirely. Keep up the good work buddy, you're really helping the project out here. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. There are a few opposes on the count of relevance or Hong Kong being a subnational unit (irrelevant, as if it was ITN/R would make it automatic with a sourced article), but most oppose votes are about the wording of the original and first blurb. Mdu02 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I really fail to see how consensus exists to post this. Sarcastic personal attacks on other good-faith editors is not going to convince anyone otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The voice of reason -- as opposed to puerile blather. TNX. -- Sca (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that it's been a few days, I don't think this will get posted because of inactivity, and to be fair the event is somewhat borderline on notability without some editorializing. That being said, I don't think the original commenter should have simply looked at the vote and unilaterally made such a decision. I won't say it's in bad faith but it's irresponsible. About half the oppose votes are arguments about wording rather than about notability, and on a more notable event such a vote count could still easily lead to consensus achieved. Mdu02 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a complete misread of the consensus of the opposition. Even if we conceded this was a technically an "election," there is absolutely no case being made for an exception to our standard practice of not posting sub-national elections.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Well-worded compromise and this is still in the news. The so-called Uncontested election lacks sourcepower, but despite my ongoing protest, that's not illegal. I think John Lee is our real target article here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe the article is unlikely to go on ITN for the lack of timeliness as noted by other editors, still I would like to mark my support on record, also as the main editor of the article, and I thank the nomination by User:Unknown Temptation. ALT2 is preferred, wording could be changed from "uncontested" to "sole candidate" in my opinion if such is controversial. J. Dann 05:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mickey Gilley

 * Oppose Article needs more references that can clear up the CN tags. After that, this article would be ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio currently has at least 10 {cn} tags in the prose. The Awards section has no sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kang Soo-yeon

 * Support in principle, weak oppose on quality I have fixed up some issues (such as dividing up the sections and removed some weasel words) however it still needs some work. Fix the orange tag, and we're golden. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Now looks to be fully cleaned-up. Kingsif (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After further inspection, I can't say that it is. Still some CN tags and no inline citations for the filmography section. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Awards and nominations section needs sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Kentucky Derby

 * Comment Needs a "Race Description" section. Joofjoof (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs additional prose. Support Article looks to be cleaned up now. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The 80-1 odds win is like winning the lottery in Horse Racing. The blurb should be updated to reflect the second ever long shot win in Kentucky Derby history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This should only be included if this is nearly-universal in all coverage of the event (eg I think last year we had the first female jockey to win which was connected to the win, and as such we included.) --M asem (t) 13:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Notable sporting event.  Mario Jump  83!  02:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per personal feelings. Not a notable event. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R dictates that it is a notable event. The discussion should be about quality, not feelings. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacking sufficient sources in my view. AusLondonder (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fairly decent and got a race description now. Llewee (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ditto on article quality. Looks good. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR event and article's cleaned up. The Kip (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine, event is ITNR, and looks reasonably notable enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, looks good now. --Tone 12:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Is there not a picture of the horse? About chuckled when I glanced the top blurb. CoatCheck (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Benjamin Rich arrested near Site 112 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan

 * Strong oppose Definitely nowhere close to world-impactful news, and would be likely covered under the Ukraine/Russia war ongoing. --M asem (t) 21:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is an extremely trivial event. The Kip (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bemused oppose Might reel in a few more thousand YouTube subscribers for him. But really? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly election

 * Comment I think you mean the first NON-unionist or the first nationalist party. Yes they advocate Irish unification but they are definitely not "unionist" in an NI context. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Shoot yeah, that's my bad lol. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is widely sourced, well detailed, and has quite a bit of prose, which is something we haven't seen in a while. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Northern Ireland is not a sovereign nation, so this is not ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment not quite so straightforward; it is a sovereign nation in a union with 3 others.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a part of the UK and not listed on its own by List of sovereign nations as specified by ITNR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * True but it's a lot more complicated than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, but ITNR is black and white. This nom can be considered on its merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By no definition is Northern Ireland a sovereign nation. The United Kingdom is a unitary state subdivided into countries or nations, with subnational assemblies recently created by the national parliament. You'd be far better positioned to make that argument if the UK was a federation, like the United States, Germany or Belgium. --Inops (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of thos guff wrt soveriegn nation s is at all relevant; the article is to be judged on its merits. Who even mentioned ITNR?  SN54129  12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this "guff" is not a good reason to not post the article, given the event's significance. Indeed, I support the article being posted to ITN. I was just correcting a falsehood a user posted above. --Inops (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose subnational elections are not ITNR. I thought this was clear. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We post many things that are not on ITNR. That's not a rationale to oppose.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply Not a sub-nation though, in fact fought a war over it and partly the result was these elections existing and devolution. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – whilst ordinarily I would side against a sub-national election at ITN, this is significant enough to receive worldwide coverage. Yes, it isn't ITNR, but it's not being nominated as ITNR, and a periodic event not being on ITNR is not a bar from it being nominated on its own merits. Sceptre (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Sceptre upon reading some news coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support due to widespread international coverage this election has garnered. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very significant result from the constituent nation of the UK, with lots of coverage of the result and it having large potential consequences Quinby  ( talk ) 21:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Although sub-national elections aren't typically ITNR, the widespread international coverage and notability of a nationalist party winning the first-ever plurality for their bloc gives it credence. The Kip (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support basically per above comments. Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support I’m late here, but I support based on what is said and would venture to say maybe it should mention that this is a first, though it doesn’t have to and it’s already been posted. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose Sub-national election with no real significance (Sinn Féin got the very same number of seats as in the previous election with few more votes). Pavlor (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support. To try and claim there is "no real significance" is to show a lack of understanding of what has happened here. This is the first time a party dedicated to breaking away from the UK and attempting to unify with Eire has won a majority of seats in the elections. Half the constituent countries within the UK now have separatist politicians in charge and this could lead to a fracturing of the UK. It also makes the NI protocol part of the Brexit deal even more fraught. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:6C22:728F:3C1A:A587 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Separatists are not "in charge" here, they lead a minority government. To pass any bill, they'll need legislative help, and I don't think the loyalists are keen on breaking away. I could be wrong, though, since words are often used to mean the opposite thing in politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose - subnational. It doesn't see that much coverage either, since most headlines I see are on the Russia-Ukraine war and the upcoming May 9 holiday in Russia. If this is pulled I'll change my vote above on the Hong Kong Chief Executive election to oppose too. Banedon (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose We rightly refuse posting American state election results, irrespective of argued 'significance', because it's sub-national. Yes yes, the UK is a union of nations e.t.c but we're not going to be posting Welsh or Scottish election results.  This really shouldn't have gone up. Gopchunk (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose -- we would not post in ITN if (for example), a new Governor were elected in Florida, despite the fact that Florida, being a U.S. state, has more sovereignty than Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland's Parliament and its government could theoretically be abolished at any time). Since this election outcome involves a "nation" with no sovereignty whatsoever, it should be ineligible for ITN, and should be pulled.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: at the very least, if we are going to post this, the blurb should explain WHY this is big news. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Are we really choosing to overlook the significance of this given the last hundred years of political history in Northern Ireland? WaltCip- (talk)  23:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, can the blurb at least explain WHY this is important? I understand why it matters (Sinn Fein is a separatist party), but the blurb does not make that clear. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Sinn Féin got the very same number of seats in every constituency as in the previous election. Their success looks "historic" only because DUP lost votes and seats to other parties (Alliance, which got also some SDLP seats). Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support due to the significance of a separatist party winning a subnational election for the first time. Would agree that adding "for the first time" to the blurb would make sense. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Under generally the same premises as above. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb should mention that this is the first time a nationalist party has won the majority of votes just so people know why we posted a subnational election.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A majority of votes (or seats or anything) can't be fewer than half; this is "plurality". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support as the first time that Sinn Féin have won the most seats in NI, it's a significant moment that's widely covered, and thus ITN worthy. Much more so than the ITNR elections we post for micronations, or sham elections like Hong Kong. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article is in good enough quality, topic is being covered at a high-level by reliable news sources. Checks every necessary box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Joseph, and the fact that it's the first occasion on which a nationalist party has led the government that was specifically created to prevent this event from ever happening :D   SN54129  12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, but oppose of current blurb: We don't ordinarily post subnational results, but have in this case because of the significance of a nationalist party becoming the largest in the Assembly for the first time in Northern Ireland's history. However, there's no mention of this being the case in the blurb and therefore the event's importance. For that reason, the blurb should be reworded to include it. --Inops (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Laskey (American football)

 * Support Short, but sufficient. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets requirements.  Mario Jump  83!  21:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: George Pérez

 * DC and Marvel. Support. DS (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Sad news indeed. There goes another piece of my childhood. Article in pretty good shape. Two or three sentences lacking references. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire Bibliography needs sources, though if there is one overall source that captures all that, that would work. --M asem (t) 12:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support the article is pretty good for RD, but Bibliography section needs some citational work.  Mario Jump  83!  21:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bibliography section now carries an orange tag requesting for more citations. There are dozens of bullet-points in this section, but only a few come with a footnote. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Hotel Saratoga explosion

 * Comment – Hotel closed for renovation, blast due to "gas leak," although there seems to be some confusion about that, as BBC speaks of a "gas tanker," i.e. a truck. Seems marginal. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While the hotel was closed it still had a high death toll in addition to the historic nature of the building. M asem (t) 13:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'High' is relative. -- Sca (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Over 20 people killed is high for an explosion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * AP, Guardian now put toll at 26. -- Sca (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the blurb accordingly. It's a high death toll & had it happened in the developed world it'd have been posted hours ago. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikiarticle currently has only 154 words of prose. Can this stub be expanded? --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Article is currently a stub as of now. Will oppose blurbing until it can be expanded with reliable sources and can be fixed to sound less like news, and more like an encyclopedia entry. Cheers. WimePocy 15:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-written and sourced. Clearly of significance. AusLondonder (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Hotel Saratoga explosion is a stub with 171 words. If there is not sufficient materials for a standalone article, would Hotel Saratoga, Havana be a better ITN candidate? --PFHLai (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like article is now at 700 words. Death toll now at 42, with 94 injuries and 3 missing. 93 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A significant chunk of the text is a background about the hotel, rather than being about the fire itself. The content on the fire itself is still limited. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Major disaster in Latin America with high death toll. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major event, lots of casualties, and the article has been improved significantly since this was nominated. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Hagerty

 * Support Article length and sourcing look good. Joofjoof (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Axel Leijonhufvud

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth Welsh

 * Oppose Filmography section needs citations. Please add them. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Filmography needs sources. The prose has a handful of {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Samuels

 * Oppose 1154 B (190 words) is too short and I'm not convinced he meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short, and not really that significant.  Mario Jump  83!  23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Greatly improved since my previous comment with adequate citations, however it is currently nominated for AfD.  Mario Jump  83!  03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sketchy. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George D. Gould

 * Please can I request a pair of eyes on this article. Goes stale in ~22 hours. Ktin (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, refs check out. Not sure why nobody got to this before. Given the tight timeline, I'm going to be bold and mark it as ready. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Morris (American football)

 * This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. Long enough with 400+ words. No issues with formatting and footnotes. Two minor issues that should not hold back this RD nom: [1] What position(s) did he play? Scoring points, conversions and rushing gave the impression that he was an offensive player in college. He switched to DB as a pro? [2] A little more info on his post-football life would improve the coverage in this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenny Moore

 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Stanislav Shushkevich

 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Article needs additional sources., plus an orange tag in it. Article has been fixed up, though I'm still against a blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once quality is improved. Maybe even a blurb.Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb He isn't really considered a great figure in the imperealist debauchery that was the dissolution of the USSR. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, did you just vote oppose on your own proposal? The Kip (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh oh... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooooof. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you that this is also one of the three leaders of states that signed an agreement on the collapse of the USSR (+ Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk). And don't forget his connection to Lee Harvey Oswald. This is a historical figure. Mrs. Alena (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb just because he's a white European leader, that doesn't entitle him to a blurb. He's no more noteworthy than the African ex-leaders that never get consensus for a blurb (and yes, I know his impact on the dissolution of the USSR). Also, orange tag needs fixing, otherwise nothing will get posted anyway. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Every biography on Wikipedia is a historical figure. Bar needs to be set higher than just "any head of state/government" for death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD oppose blurb - per above CR-1-AB (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Not transformative or notable enough to merit a blurb. Was leader for scarcely 3.5 years and didn't do particularly much besides oversee independence. The Kip (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD at the moment. As there are literally no supports for a blurb, I think we can table that discussion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Major sourcing issues that no one who voted support seems interested in fixing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * should be good now. 4iamking (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Someone just removed the "refimprove" tag, but didn't actually provide any references.  The "political activity" section contains lots of information for which there is no clear source.  There had been a refimprove tag on that section.  Someone removed it without fixing the problem.  Problems don't go away like that.  I returned the tag, because the actual problem had not been fixed.  Someone still actually have to find the sources and provide citations to fix the problem.  Please do so.  Or not, you don't have to.  But if you (or someone else) doesn't, this isn't being posted on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and RD While the person in question are significant enough, references within the article needs a lot of work to do. There are some sections within the article that doesn't have any citations yet.  Mario Jump  83!  23:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Impactful in the dissolution itself, but was not able to hold power much longer after that, the significance for a blurb is thus not clearly shown. Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much unreferenced materials. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aguil Chut-Deng

 * Support Meets requirements, cited as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Walden

 * Comment: Any specific info about Walden's role in the ARPANET project? Article almost entirely focuses on what the team did. Adequate as is, however. Weak support  Spencer T• C 08:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spencer. Added a few lines. Please have a look when you have a bit. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meets requirements, but lacks focus on the subject.  Mario Jump  83!  07:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erich Barnes

 * Support Could probably use some integration of statistics into career section but meets minimum standards as-is; referenced.  Spencer T• C 08:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a line with his career stats.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Cited, meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meda Mládková

 * Support 500+ words, cited , prose , Solid article. Grimes2 (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,Good article with enough information Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Mineta

 * Support Does the article have citing? Is it long enough?  Is it issue free?  This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon A. Reynolds

 * Oppose Almost entirely based on an Air Force profile. Though not self-published, seems too close to partial. The death update is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the date formats are inconsistent. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed about as many, but good start. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we got them all now. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough (800+ words). No concerns with formatting or deployment of footnotes. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. I'm not worried about the USAF profile being used so heavily. His alumnus profile at his alma mater says roughly the same things. Neither have been updated like ours in the wiki. --PFHLai (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tony Brooks (racing driver)

 * Oppose Known as the "Racing Dentist"?! I HATE the dentist! Weak Support Article, while it could use some more sourcing, is generally OK. Contra  distinguish  ing  23:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until referencing issues are fixed. Last part of Career section is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as needs more sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose still has a few {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. The 'overturning' hasn't even been confirmed as of yet, and it's just major speculation. Wait until it's been confirmed, THEN wait until it's happened to post. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The final ruling, if holds to what is leaked, likely will be ITN worthy, so here we should analyze what is left which is the leak if a draft opinion from SCOTUS. That is being called unprecedented but I would not call it an ITN story itself given that the ruling likely will be. --M asem  (t) 17:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb is way too long. Is the story the leak, or the draft opinion itself? There has been an investigation launched into the former, but it would be better to wait until the ruling is actually issued and takes effect. That will be a story. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The draft is notable, but not legally official. Wait to post until the ruling (unfortunately) is formally made public. The Kip (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ruling itself would be major news, we don't need to "scoop" the story by posting every leak that comes out this early. We can wait.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and The Kip. The end of Roe v. Wade is a big deal, probably should be posted on ITN, but not until the ruling is official, which I believe will happen in June. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I think there is neither reason to support when the final resolution is nominated (because I'm sure someone will come up with it). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove from ongoing: COVID-19 pandemic
I think it's now time to consider removing this item. COVID-19's outbreak started about two years ago, and since then has peaked several times with each new wave and new variant. Countries have locked down, then re-opened, and many social distancing and quarantining restrictions (with the exception of China) are falling like dominoes. Now we are fortunate to have vaccines readily accessible (in developed countries, at least) and boosters coming out for them on a regular basis. Whatever can be said about COVID-19, it seems we are gradually approaching the phase at which it is considered endemic. This is not to say that the event is no longer in the news, but the updates are becoming few and far between, and when I peruse Portal:Current events, I see very little updates on COVID-19's outbreaks. We will never eliminate this virus entirely from the global population, but we are adapting. Therefore, I submit to ITN/C a consideration to remove this item from ongoing, with no prejudice against re-posting if another severe, widespread outbreak occurs.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because as you said: "This is not to say that the event is no longer in the news", and it still certainly is, especially now in China, where extreme COVID restrictions have led to horrific videos where you can hear hundreds if not thousands of people wailing into the streets in pain and sadness because of these extreme restrictions. Until COVID restrictions in China have halted (and there aren't anymore COVID breakouts such as the omicron one) my !vote remains Oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's too early to say we're out of the pandemic. The fact is that there's still a large portion of the global population which hasn't received a single dose of the vaccine due to multiple factors. We're also dealing with Omicron subvariants that throw any kind of prior immunity out the window in regards to previous Omicron infection. With that being said, I can't support removing "COVID-19 Pandemic" from ongoing until a broad-spectrum vaccine is created or we start rolling out variant-specific boosters that can be received every few years (no less than 3 years between doses).
 * To call COVID-19 "endemic" goes against the reality right now as an endemic illness lacks the spikes and declines that we currently see on a global scale with COVID-19. Yeah sure, the flu is considered a seasonal illness with spikes in the winter but you'll almost always see an inverted graph when taking account for the opposing hemisphere as they enter their flu season. These spikes strain our healthcare systems and put further strain on healthcare workers who might need or be required to call off elective operations to treat an individual infected with SARS-CoV-2. This often leads into a domino effect straining other parts of our normal lives even if there aren't any restrictions from different levels of government.
 * Take care,
 * Narwal SlavicNarwal (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops meant to tag WaltCip's post not Fakescientist8000's. SlavicNarwal (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Fakescientist8000 Flameperson (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still making headlines particularly with the more recent shutdown of Shanghai from the last variant. We still gave waves going around, and once those die out, it then probably can be removed. --M asem (t) 16:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support MERS and AIDS are both still a "pandemic" in the WHO sense but are endemic in the real sense, so too it COVID-19. If we eject it from ongoing we can go back to posting occasional blurbs for significant updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still in the headlines. Still highly relevant though of course media reports on more other subjects today than a year ago.BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The Covid threat has subsided in some parts of the world, but the incidence of new cases is still high in others, with Germany and France being notably affected. Germany, per Reuters, "leads the world in the daily average number of new infections reported, accounting for one in every six ... each day." Although the current Omicron variant is "less severe" than prior variants, it's considered dangerous. So I don't see a need to drop Covid from Ongoing now. – Sca (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I feel like the pandemic has run it's course, and for the most part on society too, its hardly in the news and I can't remember the last time I saw a face mask in public. I mean unless we are talking about china, but to me that's more of a case of a (harsh) localised reaction. It shouldn't be listed for ever as there are other diseases out there too that affect society. Would support reevaluating this should covid take a turn in the future. 152.115.83.242 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the desires of many (see directly above), this pandemic has not run its course and is still in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not really in the headlines anymore; we are moving to the "learn to live it" phase.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. And WP:WORLDWIDE. We may not currently be in special measures in western countries, but it's still having major impact in other countries, particularly China at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Continues to dominate international news. I think a few weeks ago I may have even agreed with the OP and others that this was dropping off the radar, but things are on the rise again; locally my area has seen a ten-fold increase in cases in just the past two weeks, and major lockdowns have recently been implemented in several places around the world, notably China.  I think it's getting to be a better prospect to drop it in the future, but I don't think we're there yet.  It's still a major story and we're still seeing headlines about it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still ongoing, still in the news. -- KTC (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:WORLDVIEW. Shanghai is in lockdown, Beijing may be next. Many covid restrictions are still in place worldwide and covid remains in the news. AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Yanok

 * Comment: Lead and infobox mentions he's a jazz drummer, but doesn't appear to me like the body has any information about that. Also unclear what the lead means when it says he is an "artist".  Spencer T• C 09:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done – added a sentence and ref about his drumming with the Nashville Jazz Workshop and removed "artist". —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced, 400+ words , prose . Passed. Grimes2 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is adequately cited, and good prose. Great work.  Mario Jump  83!  03:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Birney

 * Support article looks good, I was about to nominate this myself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above - article looks fine, no issues. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Fake. Grimes2 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Biancamaria Frabotta

 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Brief but meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 09:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 World Snooker Championship

 * Support Satis. Good article. Grimes2 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Grimes2. Article is good, no issues and well cited. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive and fully referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Was that the longest post-match hug in its history? I timed it at 65 seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggect alternative blurb:"Ronnie O'Sullivan wins the World Snooker Championship, defeating Judd Trump in the final, to claim record-equalling seventh title." (which is what is in sources and this really matters). Kirill C1 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason I don't comment on this, is because the record is for wins since 1977, not overall wins. It would be a bit of a long blurb to explain this nuance. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, both my suggestion and "Ronnie O'Sullivan wins the World Snooker Championship, defeating Judd Trump in the final, to claim record-equalling seventh title in modern area" aren't better alternatives for blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty wordy for a blurb - also, "modern era" isn't so well defined - see Talk:World Snooker Championship. You could say "at the Crucible, but then, this is the main page, so you'd have to explain a bit of why this is important. Him winning the title is noteworthy enough. He's also the oldest winner, but blurbs are only supposed to explain why the item is in the news. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Finland sends in a NATO application on 12th of May

 * Oppose "expected", "12th of May"? I'd rather wait until they're actually admitted [with Sweden?], rather than post that they've submitted a membership application and started negotiations. --  AxG /  ✉  10:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Let's wait at least until they actually apply. —Cryptic 10:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, wait until they actually apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to reconsider, in ten days' time, on 12 May. Also not sure that Sanna Marin is the best target article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, and can we only post the blurb if they do get accepted? Thanks. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That won't be happening on 12 May, will it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. the Sanna Marin article has not been updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I expect we'll be bolding Enlargement of NATO. —Cryptic 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until they actually apply (though I don't agree with waiting until they are admitted, but we can argue that one later). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Millie Bailey

 * Support Article has citing? Is it long enough?  Is it issue free?  This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers. WimePocy 19:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed, looks ready. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Wime. Grimes2 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kathy Boudin

 * Oppose multiple orange tags about lack of citing. Please fix them! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is still one footnote-free paragraph under the orange tag requesting for more citations. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Alarcón

 * Support no issues. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Régine Zylberberg

 * There are a few {cn} tags, and a couple of refs that link to unrelated webpages and fail verification. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)